3  .  3  o  .  /v 


#*'^ 


"itt. 


PRINCEXPN,  N.  J. 


*fc 


% 


>« 


Presented   by  Er.  T  L.PaU( 


Division  .Jj.S...l  2-  3  S* 
•«!(•<»•*»  t..4.l.....Si.»'     /     I    ^" 


PY 


O^ 


THE  TJI^ITY   OF  THE  BOOK 
OF   GENESIS 


IN    UNIFORM    BINDING 

THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

By  WILLIAM  HENRY  GREEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Oriental  and  Old  Testament  Literature  in 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary 

8vo,  $1.50 


MAR  ^Viim 


THE   UNITY  OF  THE    BOOK 
OF   GENESIS 


WILLIAM   HENEY  GREEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF    ORIENTAL    AND    OLD    TESTAMENT    LITERATURE    IN    PRINCETON 
THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY 


NEW  YORK 

CHAKLES    SCEIBNEK'S    SONS 

1895 


Copyright,  1895,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


THOW  DIRECTOBY 

PRINTING  AND  BOOKBINDING  COMPANY 

New  YORK 


PREFACE 

At  J.  tradition,  from  whatever  source  it  is  derived, 
whether  inspired  or  uninspired,  unanimously  affirms  that 
the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible  were  written  by  one  man 
and  that  man  was  Moses.  There  is  no  counter-testimony 
in  any  quarter.  From  the  predominant  character  of  their 
contents  these  books  are  commonly  called  the  Law.  All 
the  statutes  contained  in  them  are  expressly  declared  to 
have  been  written  by  Moses  or  to  have  been  given  by  the 
LoKD  to  Moses.  And  if  the  entire  law  is  his,  the  history, 
which  is  plainly  preparatory  for,  or  subsidiary  to,  the 
law,  must  be  his  likewise. 

The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  has,  how- 
ever, been  challenged  in  modern  times  in  the  name  of 
the  higher  criticism  on  two  distinct  and  independent 
grounds.  One  is  that  of  the  document  hypothesis  in  its 
various  forms  and  modifications,  which  occupies  itself 
with  the  narrative  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  on 
the  ground  of  literary  criteria  claims  that  this  is  not  the 
product  of  any  one  writer,  but  that  it  has  been  compiled 
from  different  documents,  which  are  clearly  distinguish- 
able in  diction,  style,  conception,  plan,  and  design,  and 
which  belong  to  widely  separated  ages.  The  other  is 
that  of  the  development  hypothesis,  which  has  attached 
itself  to  the  preceding,  but  deals  characteristically  with  a 
different  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  and  employs  a  differ- 
ent style  of  argument.  Its  field  of  operation  is  the  laws, 
which  it  claims  were  not  and  could  not  have  been  given 
by  Moses,  nor  at  any  one  period  in  the  history  of  Israel. 


VI  PREFACE 

It  professes  to  trace  the  growth  of  this  legislation  from 
simple  and  primitive  forms  to  those  which  are  more 
complex  and  which  imply  a  later  and  more  developed 
civilization.  And  it  confidently  affirms  that  these  laws 
could  not  have  been  committed  to  writing  in  their  pres- 
ent form  for  many  centuries  after  the  age  of  Moses, 

These  hypotheses  are  discussed  in  a  general  way  in  my 
"  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,"  where  the  fallacy 
and  inconclusiveness  of  the  reasoning  by  which  they  are 
defended  and  the  falsity  of  the  conclusions  deduced  from 
them  are  exposed.  In  order  to  a  complete  refutation  of 
these  hypotheses  it  is  necessary  to  show  still  further  by 
a  detailed  examination  their  inajjplicability  to,  and  in- 
compatibility with,  the  phenomena  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  that,  so  far  from  solving  the  question  of  its  origin, 
they  are  destitute  of  any  real  basis ;  they  find  no  support 
in  the  Pentateuch  itself,  but  are  simply  the  creations  of 
learned  ingenuity  and  a  lively  imagination. 

The  present  treatise  occupies  itself  exclusively  with 
the  document  hypothesis,  and  aims  to  prove  that  the 
book  of  Genesis  is  not  a  compilation  from  different  docu- 
ments, but  is  the  continuous  work  of  a  single  writer. 
The  demonstration  that  this  hypothesis  has  no  foothold 
in  Genesis  effectually  overturns  it  for  tlie  rest  of  the 
Pentateuch,  or,  if  the  critics  please,  the  Hexateuch.  It 
took  its  rise  in  Genesis ;  the  most  plausible  arguments 
in  its  favor  are  drawn  from  that  book ;  and  the  verdict 
rendered  by  that  book  substantially  settles  the  case  for 
those  that  follow.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  the  assumption 
that  it  is  firmly  established  in  Genesis  that  it  is  carried 
through  the  Hexateuch.  If  that  assumption  is  proved 
to  be  false,  the  hypothesis  collapses  entirely. 

What  is  here  proposed  is  a  critical  study  of  Genesis 
from  beginning  to  end,  chapter  by  chapter  and  section 
by  section.     The  history  of  critical  opinion  is  given  in 


PREFACE  Vll 

full  in  the  more  important  passages,  and  is  throughout 
traced  sufficiently  to  place  before  the  reader  the  various 
views  that  have  been  entertained,  together  with  the 
grounds  adduced  on  their  behalf.  Pains  have  been  taken 
to  carefully  collate  and  frankly  state  whatever  has  been 
urged  in  defence  of  the  hypothesis  by  its  ablest  and 
most  eminent  advocates  on  each  successive  passage  ;  and 
this  is  then  subjected  to  a  thorough  and  candid  exami- 
nation. The  reader  will  thus  be  put  in  possession  of  the 
reasons  for  and  against  it  to  the  best  of  the  writer's  abil- 
ity, and  can  form  his  owti  conclusion.  The  writer,  while 
aiming  at  entire  fairness  in  presenting  both  sides  of  the 
argument,  does  not  conceal  his  own  assured  conviction 
of  the  overwhelming  preponderance  in  favor  of  the  faith 
of  ages  and  against  the  divisive  hypothesis  of  modern 

times. 

As  the  alleged  criteria  of  the  different  documents  are 
most  fully  and  clearly  stated  by  Dr.  Dillmann,  his  pres- 
entation of  them  is  followed  throughout  the  book,  unless 
where  some  other  authority  is  expressly  mentioned. 

To  avoid  constant  circumlocution  P,  J,  E,  and  T>  are 
frequently  spoken  of  as  though  they  were  the  real  en- 
tities that  the  critics  declare  them  to  be,  and  passages 
are  said  to  belong  to  one  or  the  other  because  critics  so 
affirm.  Such  language  adopted  for  brevity  must  not  be 
understood  as  an  admission  that  the  documents  so  called 
ever  existed. 

In  replying  to  the  objections  of  Bishop  Colenso  in 
1863  the  author  ventured  the  suggestion  that  he  might 
at  some  future  time  prepare  a  work  on  the  criticism  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Since  that  time  the  positions  then 
taken  by  leading  critics  have  been  abandoned  by  them- 
selves, and  their  whole  conception  of  the  origin  and  con- 
stitution of  the  Pentateuch  has  been  revolutionized. 
The  complex  character  of  the  Pentateuchal  question 


Vlil  PREFACE 

and  the  tedious  minuteness  required  in  its  thorough  ex- 
amination doubtless  supply  the  reason  why  so  many 
critics  are  content  with  repeating  or  building  upon  the 
conclusions  of  their  predecessors  without  investigating 
for  themselves  the  soundness  of  the  basis  on  which  these 
conclusions  rest.  The  author  frankly  confesses  for  him- 
self that,  while  he  felt  at  every  point  the  weakness  and 
imsatisfactory  character  of  the  arguments  of  the  divisive 
critics,  he  was  long  deterred  by  the  complexity  of  the 
task  from  undertaking  to  prepare  such  a  treatise  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  required.  He  might  have  continued 
still  to  shrink  from  it  but  for  the  proposal,  in  1888, 
by  his  friend  Dr.  W.  K.  Harper,  of  an  amicable  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  in  the  columns  of  the  Hebraica. 
The  kindly  proposal  was  accepted,  though  with  some 
hesitation  lest  the  cause  whose  defence  was  thus  under- 
taken might  suffer  from  unskilful  advocacy.  It  seemed, 
however,  to  involve  less  responsibility  and  to  be  a  less 
onerous  undertaking  to  engage  in  such  a  discussion, 
piecemeal,  in  the  columns  of  a  quarterly  journal,  at 
the  solicitation  of  a  friend,  than  to  set  myself  to  the 
preparation  of  a  work  on  the  entire  subject  of  my  own 
motion.  The  discussion  thus  begun  was  continued  at 
intervals,  step  by  step,  through  the  whole  of  the  narrative 
portion  of  the  Pentateuch.  Though  convinced  at  the 
outset  of  the  unsoundness  in  the  main  of  the  arguments 
urged  on  behalf  of  the  critical  partition  of  the  Penta- 
teuch by  its  principal  defenders,  I  did  not  know  but 
there  might  be  some  fire  where  there  was  so  much 
smoke,  and  some  possible  foundation  for  the  positive 
assertions  in  which  the  critics  are  so  prone  to  indulge. 
The  discussion  was  accordingly  begun  with  no  absolute 
prepossession  on  my  part  for  or  against  the  existence  of 
Pentateuchal  documents.  One  thing  was  clear  to  my 
mind  from  the  beginning,  that  the  Pentateuch  as  inspired 


PREFACE  ix 

of  God  was  a  true  and  trustworthy  record ;  everything 
else  was  left  to  be  determined  by  the  evidence  which  it 
should  supply.  As  the  discussion  proceeded  I  found  my- 
self unable  to  discover  sufficient  reason  anywhere  for  the 
assumption  that  the  Pentateuch  was  a  compilation  from 
pre-existing  documents;  and  by  the  time  that  my  task 
was  completed  I  had  settled  down  in  the  assured  belief 
that  the  so-called  documents  were  a  chimera,  and  that 
the  much-vaunted  discovery  of  Astruc  was  no  discovery 
at  all,  but  an  ignis  fatuus  which  has  misled  critics  ever 
since  into  a  long  and  weary  and  fruitless  search  through 
fog  and  mire,  that  might  better  be  abandoned  for  a 
forward  march  on  ten- a  fir  ma. 

The  discussion  in  the  Hebraica  prepared  the  way  for 
the  volume  now  offered  to  the  public,  in  which  the 
attempt  is  made  to  treat  the  question  with  more  thor- 
oughness than  was  possible  in  the  limitations  necessarily 
imposed  in  a  crowded  quarterly.  The  ground  there 
traversed  has  been  carefully  re-examined  and  explored 
afresh  in  the  light  shed  upon  it  by  the  ablest  minds  on 
either  side  of  the  controversy.  The  prominence  ac- 
corded to  German  scholars  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they 
have  been  the  chief  laborers  in  the  field.  The  various 
partition  hypotheses,  after  Astruc's  conjecture,  as  he 
himself  termed  it,  had  pointed  out  the  way,  have  been 
originated  and  elaborated  by  German  scholars.  And  if 
they  have  failed  to  put  them  upon  a  solid  basis,  it  is 
from  no  lack  of  learning,  ingenuity,  or  perseverance,  but 
from  the  inherent  weakness  of  the  cause. 

It  is  hoped  that  this  volume  may  prove  a  serviceable 
text-book  for  the  study  of  criticism  ;  that  it  may  meet 
the  wants  of  theological  students  and  ministers  who  de- 
sire to  acquaint  themselves  thoroughly  with  a  subject  of 
such  prominence  and  importance  ;  and  that  it  may  like- 
wise prove  helpful  to  intelligent  lajmen  who,  omitting 


X  PREFACE 

the  discussion  of  Hebrew  words  that  are  necessarily  in- 
troduced, may  be  led  by  it  to  a  better  understanding  of 
the  book  of  Genesis  in  its  connection  and  the  mutual 
relation  of  its  several  parts,  and  be  helped  in  the  solu- 
tion of  difficulties  and  the  removal  of  objections.  It 
stands  on  the  common  ground,  dear  alike  to  all  who  re- 
gard the  Pentateuch  as  the  word  of  God  through  Moses, 
whether  Jew  or  Christian,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  clergy- 
man or  layman.  If  by  the  divine  blessing  it  shall  be 
made  to  contribute  in  any  measure  to  the  elucidation  or 
defence  of  this  part  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  to  the  confir- 
mation of  the  faith  of  any,  or  to  the  relief  of  such  as 
may  have  been  perplexed  or  troubled  by  anxious  doubts 
or  misgivings,  the  author  will  be  profoundly  grateful  to 
Him  to  whom  all  praise  is  due. 

Princeton,  N.  J.,  September  26,  1895. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Page 
The  Book  of  Genesis, 1 

The  creation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  (Gen.  i.  1-ii.  3), 
words  indicative  of  P,  4. 


The  Generations  of  the  Heavens  and  the  Earth  (Ch.  II. 

4-IV.), 7 

Primitive  state  and  fall  of  man  (ch.  ii.  4-iii.  24),  7  ;  false 
critical  methods,  7  ;  no  duplicate  account  of  the  creation, 
9  ;  no  discrepancies,  20  ;  words  and  phrases  indicative  of  J, 
29  ;  mutual  relation  of  this  and  the  preceding  section,  33. 
Cain  and  Abel— Cain's  descendants  (ch.  iv.),  36;  marks  of  J,  39. 


II 

The  Generations  of  Adam  (Ch.  V.  1-VI.  8), 42 

Adam  to  Noah  (ch.  v.),  42  ;  the  Cainite  and  Sethite  gen- 
ealogies, 43  ;  duplicate  statements,  47  ;  primeval  chronology, 
49  ;  marks  of  P,  50.  The  Sons  of  God  and  the  Daughters  of 
Men  (ch.  vi.  1-8),  51 ;  marks  of  J,  61. 


Ill 

The  Generations  of  Noah  (Ch.  VI.  9-IX.  29), 65 

The  flood  (ch.  vi.  9-ix.  17),  65 ;  the  critical  partition  of 
ch.  vi.  5-ix.  17,  66  ;  J  not  continuous,  71  ;  P  not  contin- 
uous,  78  ;  no  superfluous  repetitions,  83  ;  the  divine  names, 
88  ;  no  discrepancies,  90  ;  diiference  of  diction,  94 ;  marks 
of  P,  96 ;  marks  of  J,  116  ;  numerical  correspondence,  121  ; 
the  Assyrian  flood  tablets,  122.  Noah  after  the  flood  (ch. 
ix.  18-29),  127. 


XU  CONTENTS 


IV 

Page 

The  Generations  op  the  Sons  of  Noah  (Ch.  X.  1-XI.  9),    131 
Origin  of  nations  (ch.  x.),  131  ;  marks  of  P,  141  ;  marks 
of  J,  143.     Tower  of  Babel  (ch.  xi.  1-9),  143 ;  marks  of  J, 
145. 


The  Generations  of  Shem  (Ch.  XI.  10-26), 146 

Shem  to  Abram  (ch.  xi.  10-26),  146. 

The  Generations  op  Terah  (Ch.  XI.  27-XXV.  11),  ...  148 
Preliminary  remarks,  148  ;  the  divine  names,  151 ;  the  crit- 
ical partition,  154  ;  no  discrepancies,  161.  The  family  of 
Terah  (ch.  xi.  27-32),  168.  The  call  of  Abram  and  his  jour- 
neys (ch.  xii.),  171  ;  critical  partition  of  vs.  1-9,  172  ;  marks 
of  P,  175 ;  marks  of  J,  181.  Abram  in  Egypt  (vs.  10-20), 
182  ;  marks  of  J,  185.  Separation  from  Lot  (ch.  xiii),  185 ; 
grounds  of  partition,  186  ;  marks  of  P,  192 ;  marks  of  J,  193. 
Abram's  rescue  of  Lot  (ch.  xiv.),  195.  Promise  and  cove- 
nant of  Jehovah  (ch.  xv.),  202.  Birth  of  Ishmael  (ch.  xvi.), 
208  ;  marks  of  P,  213  ;  marks  of  J,  215.  Covenant  sealed 
by  Abraham  (ch.  xvii.),  217 ;  style  of  P,  226 ;  marks  of  P, 
231.  Visit  to  Abraliam  and  destruction  of  Sodom  (ch.  xviii. 
1-xix.  28),  236  ;  marks  of  J,  240.  Lot's  incest  (ch.  xix.  29- 
38),  246;  marks  of  J,  250.  Abraham  with  Abimelech,  king 
of  Gerar  (ch.  xx.),  250;  critical  embarrassment,  250;  diction 
of  ch.  XX.,  252;  not  referable  to  a  distinct  document,  254; 
marks  of  E,  259.  Birth  of  Isaac  and  dismissal  of  Ishmael  (ch. 
xxi.  1-21),  262;  critical  perplexity,  262  ;  division  impossible, 
266  ;  marks  of  P,  269;  marks  of  J,  269  ;  marks  of  E,  270. 
Abraham  at  Beersheba  (ch.  xxi.  22-34),  273;  marks  of  E, 
276.  Sacrifice  of  Isaac  (ch.  xxii.  1-19),  277  ;  the  critical  par- 
tition, 278 ;  marks  of  E,  286 ;  marks  of  R,  288 ;  no  proof  of 
separate  documents,  290.  Family  of  Nahor  (ch.  xxii.  20-24), 
291 ;  marks  of  J,  292.  Death  and  burial  of  Sarah  (ch.  xxiii.), 
293;  marks  of  P,  296.  Marriage  of  Isaac  (ch.  xxiv.),  298; 
marks  of  J,  304.  Conclusion  of  Abraham's  life  (ch.  xxv. 
1-11),  307  ;  marks  of  P,  310. 


CONTENTS  UU 


VII 

The  Generations  of  Ishmael  (Ch.  XXV.  12-18) 312 

Marks  of  P,  313. 

VIII 

The  Generations  of  Isaac  (Ch.  XXV.  19-XXXV.),  .  .  .314 
Esau  and  Jacob  (ch.  xxv.  19-34),  314  ;  marks  of  P,  320 ; 
marks  of  J,  321.  Isaac  in  Gerar  and  Beersheba  (ch.  xxvi. 
1-33),  322 ;  marks  of  J,  326.  Jacob's  blessing  and  depart- 
ure (ch.  xxvi.  34-xxviii.  9),  328 ;  marks  of  P,  332  ;  marks 
of  J,  333  ;  marks  of  E,  333.  Jacob's  dream  (ch.  xxviii. 
10-22),  335 ;  marks  of  J,  341  ;  marks  of  E,  342.  Jacob  in 
Haran  (chs.  xxix.,  xxx.),  344  ;  the  divine  names,  350 ; 
marks  of  J,  353  ;  marks  of  E,  354.  Jacob's  return  from 
Haran  (ch.  xxxi.-xxxii.  3),  357 ;  hiatus  in  the  document  P, 
362  ;  the  covenant  of  Laban  and  Jacob,  365  ;  the  divine 
names,  369  ;  marks  of  P,  370  ;  marks  of  E,  370.  Meeting 
of  Jacob  and  Esau  (ch.  xxxii.  4-xxxiii.  17),  372  ;  Jacob 
wrestling  with  the  angel,  377;  uo  proof  of  a  parallel  narra- 
tive, 380  ;  the  divine  names,  380  ;  marks  of  J,  381.  The 
rape  of  Dinah  (ch.  xxxiii.  18-xxxiv.),  382  ;  Jacob's  arrival 
in  Shechem,  383  ;  critical  difficulties,  386 ;  divergence  of  the 
critics,  388  ;  not  composite,  398  ;  marks  of  P,  402 ;  marks 
of  J,  403.  Jacob  at  Bethel  and  Isaac's  death  (ch.  xxxv.), 
404.  Jacob  at  Bethel,  405  ;  death  of  Rachel,  408  ;  grounds 
of  partition  irrelevant,  411 ;  conclusion  of  the  section,  412. 


IX 

The  Generations  op  Esau  (Ch.  XXXVI. -XXXVII.  1),   .    .  415 

Opinions  of  critics,  415  ;  unity  of  the  chapter,  417  ;  no  dis- 
crepancies, 420 ;  no  anachronism,  425. 


The  Generations  of  Jacob  (Ch.  XXXVII.  2-L.),    ....  430 
The  unity  of  plan,  430;  lack  of  continuity  in  the  docu- 
ments, 434  ;  the  divine  names,  434 ;  diction  and  style,  435. 
Joseph  sold    into  Egypt  (ch.  xxxvii.  2-36),  437;   variance 


HT  CONTENTS 

Page 
among  critics,  437  ;  grounds  of  partition,  447 ;  marks  of  J, 
450.  The  narrative  of  Judah  and  Tamar  (cli.  xxxviii.),  452; 
no  lack  of  order,  452;  no  anachronism,  454;  marks  of  J, 
455.  Joseph  is  cast  into  prison  (ch.  xxxix.),  457;  no  dis- 
crepancies, 457 ;  the  divine  names,  459  ;  marks  of  J,  463. 
Dreams  of  the  butler  and  baker  (ch.  xl.),  463  ;  no  discrep- 
ancy, 464 ;  no  anachronism,  466 ;  diction,  467.  Pharaoh's 
dreams  (ch.  xli.),  467;  grounds  of  partition,  468.  Journeys 
of  Jacob's  sons  to  Egypt  (ch.  xlii.-xliv.),  478;  no  discrep- 
ancy, 475  ;  the  divine  names,  483  ;  marks  of  J  and  E,  483. 
Joseph  makes  himself  known  (ch.  xlv.),  487  ;  marks  of  E, 
491.  Removal  to  Egypt  (ch.  xlvi.  1-27),  492  ;  marks  of  J, 
498  ;  marks  of  E,  498 ;  marks  of  P,  498.  Settlement  in 
Goshen  (ch.  xlvi.  29-xlvii.  11),  499;  marks  of  P,  503;  marks 
of  J,  502.  Joseph's  arrangements  in  Egypt  (ch.  xlvii.  12-27), 
504;  marks  of  E,  506;  marks  of  J,  507  ;  marks  of  P,  509. 
Jacob  charges  Joseph  and  adopts  his  sons  (ch.  xlvii.  28-xlviii, 
22),  510 ;  marks  of  P,  518 ;  marks  of  E,  518  ;  marks  of  J, 
519.  Jacob's  blessing  and  death  (ch.  xlix.),  519 ;  no  vati- 
ciuium  post  eventum,  531  ;  marks  of  P,  536.  The  burial  of 
Jacob  and  death  of  Joseph  (ch.  1.),  526 ;  marks  of  J,  529 ; 
marks  of  E,  530. 

Conclusion, 531 

Grounds  of  partition,  531  ;  repetitions  and  discrepancies, 
533 ;  the  divine  names,  538 ;  diction,  style,  and  conception, 
548  ;  continuity  of  Genesis,  554  ;  chasms  in  the  documents, 
556  ;  vphen  and  where  produced,  560.  Summary  of  the  argu- 
ment, 571. 

INDEX. 

I.  The  Divine  Names 573 

II.  Style,  Conception  and  the  Relation  op  Passages,  .  573 

III.  Characteristic  Words  and  Phrases, 574 

IV.  The  English  Equivalents, 579 


WORKS  REFERRED  TO  IN  THIS 
VOLUME 


*»*  These  works  are  here  arranged  in  the  order  of  their  publication. 
The  reader  can  thus  see  at  a  glance  where  each  belongs  in  the  history  of 
critical  opinion. 

Matthew  Poole,  Annotations  upon  the  Holy  Bible,  First  Edition,  1683. 
Astruc,  Conjectures  sur  les  Memoires  Originaux,  dont  il  paroit,  que 

Moyse  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  Livre  de  la  Genese,  1753. 
Harmer,  Observations  on  Divers  Passages  of  Scripture,  Second  Edi- 
tion, 1776. 
Ilgen,  Die  Urkunden  des  ersten  Buchs  von  Moses  in  ihrer  Urgestalt, 

1798. 
Vater,  Commentar  ixber  den  Pentateuch,  Theil  i.,  ii.,  1803  ;  Theil  iii., 

1805. 
Eichhorn,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  Dritte  Ausgabe,  1803  ; 

Vierte  Ausgabe,  1823. 
DeWette,  Beitriige  zur  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  Erstes  Band- 

chen,  1806  ;  Zweiter  Band,  1807. 
Ewald,  Die  Komposition  der  Genesis  kritisch  untersucht,  1823. 
Gramberg,  Libri  Geneseos  Secundum  Pontes  rite  dignoscendos  Adum- 

bratio  nova,  1828. 
F.  H.  Ranke,  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Pentateuch  aus  dem  Gebiete 

derhoherenKritik.Erster  Band,  1831  ;  Zweiter  Band,  1840. 
Hengstenberg,  Die  Authentic  des  Pentateuches,  Erster  Band,  1836  ; 

Zweiter  Band,  1839. 
Movers,  Review  of  von  Bohlen's  Genesis  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Philosophic 

und  Katholische  Theologie,  1836. 
Havernick,  Handbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  das  Alte 

Testament,  Erster  Theil,  Zweite  Abtheilung,  1837. 
Tuch,  Kommentar  iiber  die  Genesis,  1838  ;  Zweite  Auflage,  1871. 
Stahelin,  Kritische  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Pentateuch,  die  Biicher 

Josua,  Richter,  Samuels,  und  der  Konige,  1843. 
Kurtz,  Die  Einheit  der  Genesis,  1846. 
Winer,  Biblisches  Realworterbuch,  Dritte  Auflage,  1847. 
Ewald,  Jahrbiicher  der  Biblischen  Wissenchaft  for  1851-58. 


XVI  WORKS   REFERRED   TO   IN   THIS   VOLUME 

Knobel,  Die  Genesis,  1852. 

Delitzsch,  Die  Genesis,  1852,  Dritte  Ausgabe,  1860  ;  Vierte  Ausgabe, 
1872.     Neuer  Commentar  iiber  die  Genesis,  1887. 

Kurtz,  Geschichte  des  Alten  Bundes,  Erster  Band,  Zweite  Auflage, 
1853. 

Hupf eld,  Die  Quellen  der  Genesis  und  die  Art  ihrer  Zusammensetzung, 
1853. 

Robinson,  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine  and  in  the  Adjacent  Re- 
gions, 1856. 

Bohmer,  Das  Erste  Buch  der  Thora,  tJbersetzung  seiner  drei  Quellen- 
schriften  und  der  Redactiouszusatze  mit  kritischen,  exegetischen, 
historischen  Erorterungen,  1863. 

Noldeke,  Untersuchungen  zur  Kritik  des  Alten  Testaments,  1869. 

Merx,  Article  on  Dinah  in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexikon,  1869. 

Schrader,  Editor  of  the  "eighth  thoroughly  improved,  greatly  en- 
larged and  in  part  wholly  transformed  edition"  of  DeWette's 
Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  die  kanonischen 
und  apokryphischen  Biicher  des  Alten  Testaments,  1869. 

Kayser,  Das  vorexilische  Buch  der  Urgeschichte  Israels  und  seine 
Erweiterungen,  ein  Beitragzur  Pentateuch-kritik,  1874. 

George  Smith,  Translation  of  the  flood  tablets  in  his  Assyrian  Dis- 
coveries, 1875 ;  the  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  1876  ;  and 
Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  vii.,  1876. 

Wellhausen,  Die  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  in  the  Jahrbticher  fiir 
Deutsche  Theologie,  1876-1877 ;  republished  in  Skizzen  und 
Vorarbeiten,  Zweites  Heft,  1885  ;  and  again  in  Die  Composition 
des  Hexateuchs  und  der  historischen  Biicher  des  Alten  Testa- 
ments, 1889. 

Kuenen,  The  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Fall  of  the  Jewish  State,  trans- 
lated by  A.  H.  May,  vol.  i.,  1874. 

Dillmann,  Die  Genesis,  first  edition  published  as  the  third  edition  of 
Knobel's  Commentary,  1875  ;  second  edition  (Knobel's  fourth), 
1882  ;  third  edition  (Knobel's  fifth),  1886. 

Wellhausen,  Geschichte  Israels,  1878,  republished  as  Prolegomena  zur 
Geschichte  Israels,  1883.     Third  edition,  1886. 

Oort,  The  Bible  for  Learners,  English  translation,  1878. 

Colenso,  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  critically  examined, 

Part  vii.,  1879. 
Reuss,  Die  Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Schriften  Alten  Testaments,  1881. 
Haupt,  Der  keilinschriftliche  Sintfiuthbericht,  in  Schrader's  Die  Keil- 

inschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament,  1883. 
Budde,  Die  Biblische  Urgeschichte  (Gen.  i— xii.  5),  1883. 
Kuenen,  An  Historico-critical  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Composi- 
tion of  the  Hexateuch.     Translated  by  P.  H.  Wicksteed,  1886. 


WORKS   REFERRED  TO   IN  THIS   VOLUME         xvii 

Vatke,  Historisch-kritische  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1886. 

Stade,  Geschicbte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1887. 

Kittel,  Geschicbte  der  Hebraer,  1888. 

Harper,  The  Pentateucbal  Question,  in  the  Hebraica  for  1888-1892. 

Kautzsch  und  Socin,  Die  Genesis  mit  ausserer  Unterscbeidung  der 
Quellenschriften,  1888  ;  Zweite  Auflage,  1891.  Reproduced  in 
English  as  Genesis  Printed  in  Colors,  showing  the  original  sources 
from  which  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  compiled,  with  an  intro- 
duction by  E.  C.  Bissell. 

Cornill,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1891. 

Driver,  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  1891. 

Strack,  Die  Genesis,  1892. 

Davis,  Genesis  and  Semitic  Tradition,  1894. 

Kuenen,  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen  zur  Biblischen  Wissenchaft. 
Au3  dem  Hollandischen  ubersetzt  von  K.  Budde,  1894. 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF 
GENESIS 

THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS 

The  history  opens  with  an  introductory  section  (ch. 
i.-ii.  3),  which  declares  how  God  in  the  beginning  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  as  the  theatre  upon  which  it 
was  to  be  transacted.  This  is  followed  by  ten  sections 
of  unequal  length,  which  make  up  the  rest  of  the  book 
of  Genesis,  and  are  introduced  by  titles  of  a  uniform 
pattern.     These  titles  are  as  follows : 

1.  Gen.  ii.  4.  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heaven 
and  of  the  earth. 

2.  Gen.  v.  1.  This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of 
Adam. 

3.  Gen.  vi.  9.     These  are  the  generations  of  Noah. 

4.  Gen.  x.  1.  These  are  the  generations  of  the  sons  of 
Noah. 

5.  Gen.  xi.  10.     These  are  the  generations  of  Shem. 

6.  Gen.  xi.  27.     These  are  the  generations  of  Terah. 

7.  Gen.  xxv.  12.  These  are  the  generations  of  Ish- 
mael. 

8.  Gen.  xxv.  19.     These  are  the  generations  of  Isaac. 

9.  Gen.  xxxvi.  1.     These  are  the  generations  of  Esau.' 

10.  Gen.  xxxvii.  2.  These  are  the  generations  of 
Jacob. 

>  Repeated,  ver.  9,  for  a  reason  to  be  explained  when  tliat  chapter 
comes  under  consideration. 
1 


2  THE   BOOK    OF   GENESIS 

These  titles  are  designed  to  emphasize  and  render 
more  prominent  and  palpable  an  important  feature  of 
the  book,  the  genealogical  character  of  its  history.  This 
results  from  its  main  design,  which  is  to  trace  the  line  of 
descent  of  the  chosen  race  from  the  beginning  to  the 
point  where  it  was  ready  to  expand  to  a  great  nation, 
whose  future  organization  was  already  foreshadowed,  its 
tribes  being  represented  in  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  and 
its  tribal  divisions  in  their  children.  The  genealogies 
contained  in  the  book  are  not  merely  incidental  or  sub- 
ordinate, but  essential,  and  the  real  basis  of  the  whole. 
They  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  addenda  to  the  narrative, 
scraps  of  information  introduced  into  it ;  they  constitute 
the  skeleton  or  framework  of  the  history  itself.  They 
are  not  separate  productions  culled  from  different  sources, 
and  here  inserted  by  the  author  as  he  found  them.  From 
whatever  quarters  the  materials  may  have  been  obtained 
they  were  cast  into  their  present  form  by  the  ^vriter  him- 
self, as  is  evident  from  the  uniformity  of  the  construc- 
tion of  those  relating  to  the  chosen  race  on  the  one  hand, 
and  those  of  alien  races  on  the  other,  together  with  the 
unbroken  continuity  of  the  former.  These  exhibit  at 
once  the  kinship  of  Israel  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
all  being  of  one  blood  and  sprung  from  one  common 
stock,  and  their  separation  from  the  rest  of  mankind  for 
a  special  divine  purpose,  God's  gracious  choice  of  them 
to  be  his  peculiar  people  until  the  time  should  arrive 
for  spreading  the  blessing  of  Abraham  over  all  the 
earth. 

There  is,  accordingly,  a  regular  series  of  genealogies  of 
like  structure,  or  rather  one  continuous  genealogy  extend- 
ing from  Adam  to  the  family  of  Jacob.  This  is  inter- 
rupted or  suspended  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  re- 
quires, for  the  sake  of  introducing  or  incorporating  facts 
of   the  history  at  particular  points  where  they  belong ; 


THE   BOOK    OF   GENESIS  3 

after  wliicli  it  is  resumed  again  precisely  at  the  same 
point,  and  proceeds  regularly  as  before  until  it  readies 
its  utmost  limit,  thus  embracing  the  entire  history  with- 
in itself.  Thus,  for  example,  the  genealogy  in  ch.  v. 
states  in  identically  recurring  formulae  the  age  of  each 
parent  at  the  birth  of  his  child,  the  number  of  years  that 
he  lived  subsequently,  and  the  length  of  his  entire  life. 
But  when  the  name  of  Noah  is  reached,  the  record  is, 
ver.  32,  "  And  Noah  was  five  hundred  years  old ;  and 
Noah  begat  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth,"  three  sons  being 
mentioned  instead  of  one,  as  was  uniformly  the  case  be- 
fore. And  here  the  genealogy  abruptly  terminates  with- 
out the  further  statements  that  analogy  would  lead  us 
to  expect,  how  long  Noah  lived  after  the  birth  of  his 
children,  and  how  many  years  he  lived  in  all.  This  is 
not  the  end  of  a  genealogical  fragment,  disconnected  from 
all  that  follows.  It  is  merely  interrupted  for  a  time  in 
order  to  introduce  the  account  of  the  deluge,  which  so 
intimately  concerned  Noah  and  his  three  sons ;  after 
which  the  missing  members  are  supplied,  and  the  series 
resumed  in  substantially  the  same  form  as  before  (ix.  28, 
29).  Again,  the  genealogy  continued  in  xi.  10  sqq.  breaks 
off  (ver.  26)  precisely  as  it  had  done  before,  by  stating 
the  age  of  a  father  at  the  birth  of  his  three  sons.  "  And 
Terah  lived  seventy  years,  and  begat  Abram,  Nahor,  and 
Haran ;  "  the  usual  statement  as  to  the  length  of  his  life 
and  the  fact  of  his  death  being  postponed  to  ver.  32,  in 
order  to  introduce  some  facts  respecting  Terah  and  par- 
ticularly respecting  his  sons,  which  had  an  important 
bearing  on  the  subsequent  history.  And  the  entire  life 
of  Abraham  is  fitted  into  the  next  link  of  the  genealogy  : 
his  age  at  the  birth  of  his  son  Isaac  (xxi.  5),  whom  he 
begat  (xxv.  19),  and  his  full  age  at  the  time  of  his  death 
(xxv.  7,  8). 


4  THE   BOOK   OF   GENESIS 

THE  OKEATION   OF  THE   HEAVENS  AND  THE  EARTH   (CH.   I. 
1-n.   3). 

The  critics  assign  this  opening  section  of  Genesis  to  P, 
because  of  its  unvarying  use  of  Elohini,  as  well  as  on  the 
ground  of  its  style  and  diction.  They  also  include  in 
this  section  ii.  4a,  which  they  regard  as  a  summary  state- 
ment of  its  contents.  This  and  the  alleged  difference  of 
style  between  this  section  and  the  next  can  best  be  con- 
sidered hereafter.  For  the  present  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
give  attention  to  the  diction.  Dr.  Dillmann  adduces  the 
following  words  and  expressions  as  indicative  of  P  :  VP 
kind,  species  (vs.  11, 12,  21,24,  25)  ;  r"l?0  ^'^  beast  of  tlie 
earth  (vs.  24,  25,  30) ;  "jr-i©  creep,  swarm,  h-ing  forth  abun- 
dantly, and  yiw  moving  creature  (vs.  20,  21)  ;  to'S'l  creep, 
and  ia^n  creeping  thing  (vs.  21,  24-26,  28,  30) ;  TCns  subdue 
(ver.  28) ;  nbpj^  food  (ver.  30) ;  Tsy^'y^  gathering  together,  col- 
lection (ver.  10) ;  Tsyy)  rns  be  fruitful  and  midtiply  (vs.  22, 
28) ;  nnpS^  "IDT  male  and  female  (ver.  27) ;  b^^nn  divide  (vs. 
4,  6,  7,' 14,  18) ;  niia^  likeness  (ver.  26). 

The  distribution  of  these  words  in  the  Hexateuch  is 
instructive.  That  which  is  rendered  "  likeness  "  occurs 
besides  in  it  only  Gen.  v.  1,  3,  where  it  is  used  with  ex- 
press allusion  to  i.  26.  "  Subdue  "  occurs  besides  in  the 
Hexateuch  only  Num.  xxxii.  22,  29  (a  chapter  in  which, 
according  to  the  critics,  the  documents  P,  J,  and  E  are 
intermingled,  and  both  of  these  verses  contain  what  are 
reckoned  indications  of  JE),  and  Josh,  xviii.  1,  an  iso- 
lated verse  in  a  JE  paragraph.  The  rest  of  these  words 
and  phrases  occur  nowhere  else  in  Genesis,  unless  it  be 
in  the  account  of  the  flood.  And  the  reason  why  most 
of  them  are  to  be  found  there  is  obvious.  The  different 
classes  of  land  animals  brought  into  being  at  the  creation 
perished  in  the  flood,  and  it  is  natural  that  they  should 
be  mentioned  in  both  cases  ;  like  mention  is  also  made 


THE   CREATION    (CH.    I.   l-II.   3)  5 

of  "  food "  as  necessary  to  life ;  the  perpetuation  of  tlie 
species  leads  to  the  reference  to  the  sexes.     The  full 
phrase,  as  used  in  Gen.  i.,  "  Be  fruitful  and  multiply  and 
fill,"  or  "replenish,"  only   occui'S   again  (ix.   1),  in  the 
blessing  pronounced  upon  mankind  after  the  flood,  which 
was  as  appropriate  as  after  the  creation ;  the  phrase  "  Be 
fruitful  and  multiply  "  occurs  besides  only  in  appHcation 
to  Abraham  and  his  descendants,  where  it  is  equally  in 
place.     Such  of  these  words  as  occur  elsewhere  are  found 
only  in  the  ritual  law.     "  Food  "  and  "  kind  "  and  diifer- 
ent  sorts  of  animals  are,  as  a  matter  of  course,  spoken  of, 
where  direction  is  given  in  respect  to  what  may  or  may 
not  be  eaten  ;  and  sex  in  like  manner  in  prescribmg  the 
animals  to  be  offered  in  sacrifice,  or  the  purifications  at  the 
birth  of  children,  or  the  rite  of  circumcision.     "  Divide  " 
does  not  occur  in  the  narrative  of  the  flood,  but  is  found 
again  in  the  ritual  law  with  reference  to  the  distinctions 
there  made  in  regard  to  clean  and  unclean,  holy  and  un- 
holy or  common,  or   separating   to  special  functions  or 
purposes,  or  to  cleavage  in  sacrifice.     The  word  translated 
"  gathering  together"  is  found  but  twice  in  the  Hexateuch 
apart  from  Gen.  i.,  viz.,  Ex.  vii.  19,  Lev.  xi.  36,  where 
collections  of  water  are  referred  to,  and  nowhere  else  in 
this  sense  in  the  entire  Old  Testament. 

It  is  manifest  from  the  foregoing  that  the  occurrence 
of  these  words  is  determined,  not  by  the  predilection  of 
a  particular  writer,  but  by  the  subject  which  calls  for 
their  employment.  They  belong  not  to  the  characteris- 
tics of  a  document,  but  are  the  common  property  of  all 
who  use  the  language,  and  may  be  found  whenever  there 
is  occasion  to  describe  the  object  denoted  by  them. 
Their  absence  from  all  the  paragraphs  or  clauses  as- 
signed by  the  critics  to  J  or  E  is  to  be  accounted  for 
precisely  as  their  absence  from  every  paragraph  of  P  but 
those  designated  above. 


6  THE   BOOK   OF   GENESIS 

For  a  more  detailed  account  of  the  usage  of  the  words 
common  to  the  creation  and  flood,  see  under  ch.  vi.-ix., 
Marks  of  P. 

Elohini  is  plainly  the  appropriate  name  for  God 
throughout  this  section,  which  regards  the  Most  High  as 
working  in  nature  and  in  the  world  at  large.  True,  the 
creative  act  may  be  ascribed  to  Jehovah  (Ex.  xx.  11), 
when  the  thought  to  be  conveyed  is  that  Israel's  God, 
who  brought  him  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  was  the  cre- 
ator of  the  world ;  but  when  the  announcement  to  be 
made  simply  is  that  the  world  had  a  divine  creator,  Elo- 
him  is  the  proper  term,  and  is  hence  constantly  used  in 
the  account  of  the  creation. 


THE    GENERATIONS    OF    THE    HEAVENS    AND    THE 
EARTH   (CH.  II.  4-rV^) 

PRIMITIVE   STATE   AND    FALL   OF   MAN    (CH.  II.  4-in.  24) 

The  question  to  be  considered  is,  Do  these  chapters 
continue  the  narrative  begun  in  the  preceding  section,  or 
do  they  introduce  a  new  and  independent  narrative  from 
an  altogether  diflerent  soiu'ce  ?  The  critics  allege  that 
they  stand  in  no  relation  to  what  goes  before,  that  a  new 
beginning  is  here  made,  and  that  this  account  is  taken 
from  another  document,  that  of  J.  It  is  said  that  the 
second  chapter  of  Genesis  cannot  have  been  written  by 
the  author  of  the  first  chapter  ;  for  (1)  it  is  a  second  ac- 
count of  the  creation,  and  is  superfluous  for  that  reason  ; 
(2)  it  differs  from  the  first  account,  and  is  irreconcilable 
with  it ;  (3)  the  diction  and  style  are  different. 

FALSE   CRITICAL   METHODS 

The  critics  here  bring  into  operation  at  the  outset  two 
vicious  methods,  which  characterize  their  whole  course 
of  procedure  and  are  the  most  potent  instruments  which 
they  employ  in  effecting  the  partition  of  the  text. 

The  first  is  the  arbitrary  assumption  that  two  different 
parts  of  a  narrative,  relating  to  matters  which  are  quite 
distinct,  are  variant  accounts  of  the  same  thing.  It  is 
very  easy  to  take  two  narratives  or  two  parts  of  the 
same  narrative,  which  have  certain  points  in   common 


8  GENERATIONS   OF   HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

but  wliich  really  describe  different  transactions,  and  lay 
them  alongside  of  one  another  and  point  out  the  lack  of 
correspondence  between  them.  The  artifice  of  the  crit- 
ics consists  in  their  identifying  distinct  things,  and  then 
every  divergence  of  the  one  from  the  other  is  claimed 
as  evidence  that  these  are  variant  traditions,  and  that 
these  discrepant  accounts  cannot  be  by  the  same  author  ; 
they  must  have  been  taken  from  different  documents. 
Whereas,  there  is  no  mystery  in  the  case  and  no  occa- 
sion for  any  such  extraordinary  conclusion.  The  simple 
fact  is  that  the  writer  has  finished  one  part  of  his  story 
and  has  proceeded  to  another ;  and,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, he  does  not  detail  over  again  what  he  had  just 
detailed  before. 

The  second  of  the  vicious  methods,  which  is  continu- 
ally practised  by  the  divisive  critics  and  is  one  of  their 
most  effective  weapons,  also  finds  exemplification  in  the 
chapters  now  under  consideration.  It  is  their  constant 
effort  to  create  a  discordance  where  none  really  exists. 
Passages  are  sundered  from  their  context,  which  eluci- 
date and  determine  their  meaning,  and  then  any  form  of 
expression  which  admits  of  a  signification  at  variance 
with  what  is  stated  elsewhere  is  seized  upon  and  pressed 
to  the  utmost  and  urged  as  a  proof  of  diverse  representa- 
tions, requiring  the  assumption  of  different  documents ; 
when,  if  it  were  only  allowed  to  bear  its  natural  sense  in 
the  connection  in  which  it  stands,  all  appearance  of  dis- 
crepancy will  disappear.  There  is  nothing  for  which 
the  critics  seem  to  have  such  an  aversion  as  a  harmoniz- 
ing interpretation ;  and  very  naturally,  for  it  annuls  all 
their  work.  And  yet  it  is  the  plain  dictate  of  common 
sense  that  the  different  parts  of  the  same  instrument 
should  be  interpreted  in  harmony,  provided  the  language 
employed  will  in  fairness  admit  of  such  an  interpreta- 
tion. 


PRIMITIVE    STATE   OF    MAN    (Oil.    II.    4-I1I.    24)        9 

The  simple  observance  of  this  obvious  rule,  together 
with  the  principle  before  referred  to,  that  things  which 
are  really  distinct  should  be  treated  as  distinct,  will  not 
only  reheve  all  the  critical  doubts  and  perplexities  rela- 
tive to  the  chapters  now  before  us,  but  the  great  major- 
ity of  those  which  are  raised  in  the  rest  of  Genesis  and 
of  the  Pentateuch  as  well. 


NO  DUPLICATE  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  CREATION 

That  the  second  chapter  does  not  contain  another  ac- 
count of  the  creation  additional  to  that  in  the  first  can 
be  readily  shown. 

And  in  the  first  place  it  does  not  profess  to  be  an  ac- 
count of  the  creation,  but  something  additional  to  and 
diflferent  from  it.  It  is  in  express  terms  declared  to  be  a 
sequel  of  the  narrative  of  the  creation.  The  second  sec- 
tion is  introduced  by  a  special  descriptive  title  (ver.  4:a)  : 
"These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the 
earth  when  they  were  created."  It  is  very  important  to 
understand  the  precise  meaning  of  these  words  and  the 
purpose  for  which  they  are  introduced.  There  has  been 
much  dispute  both  as  to  the  proper  connection  of  this 
clause  and  how  it  is  to  be  understood. 

Is  it  a  subscription  to  the  preceding  section,  setting 
forth  its  contents  ?  Or  is  it  introductory  to  the  following- 
section  and  descriptive  of  its  contents  ?  It  can  be  shown 
beyond  question  that  it  is  the  heading  of  the  section  that 
follows,  and  is  here  introduced  to  announce  its  subject. 

The  formula  "  These  are  the  generations,"  etc.,  occurs 
ten  times  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  in  every  instance 
but  the  present  indisputably  as  the  title  of  the  section  to 
which  it  is  prefixed.  The  history  is  parcelled  into  "  the 
generations  of  Adam"  (v.  1),  "  the  generations  of  Noah" 
(vi.  9),  "  the  generations  of  the   sons  of  Noah "  (x.  1), 


10  GENERATIONS   OF  HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

"  the  generations  of  Shem  "  (xi.  10),  "  the  generations  of 
Terah  "  (xi.  27),  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  book. 

Each  of  these  titles  introduces  a  new  section  of  the 
history,  longer  or  shorter  as  the  case  may  be,  and  an- 
nounces the  subject  treated  in  that  section.  The  book 
of  Genesis  after  the  first  or  preliminary  chapter  is  thus, 
in  the  plan  of  its  author,  divided  into  ten  distinct  sections, 
to  each  of  which  he  has  given  a  separate  heading  of  this 
uniform  pattern.  They  are  called  "  generations  "  be- 
cause the  framework  of  the  entire  history  is  a  genealogy, 
which  is  traced  in  a  direct  line  from  Adam  to  Jacob  and 
his  posterity.  All  the  facts  that  are  related  and  the 
statements  made  are  introduced  between  the  links  of  this 
genealogy.  The  line  of  descent  is  arrested  at  the  proper 
point,  the  narratives  belonging  there  are  inserted,  and 
then  the  line  of  descent  is  taken  up  again  just  where  it 
left  off  and  proceeds  as  before.  Divergent  lines  are 
traced,  as  occasion  arises,  to  a  sufficient  distance,  and  are 
then  dropped,  the  writer  uniformly  reverting  to  the  main 
line  of  descent,  that  of  the  chosen  race,  which  is  his  prin- 
cipal theme.  This  being  the  constant  plan  of  the  book 
this  formula,  Avhich  in  every  other  instance  is  the  title 
of  the  section  to  which  it  is  prefixed,  must  be  the  same 
in  this  case  likewise.  It  is  the  heading  of  the  second 
section,  and  can  be  nothing  else. 

This  conclusion  is  not  only  demanded  by  the  uniform 
analogy  of  the  entire  series  of  similar  titles  but  by  other 
considerations  likewise  : 

1.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  identical  structure  of  the  im- 
mediately following  clause  here  and  in  v.  1,  where  the 
connection  is  unquestioned.  "In  the  day  of  Jehovah 
Elohim's  making  earth  and  heaven,"  follows  the  title 
"the  generations  of  the  heaven  and  of  the  earth,"  in  pre- 
cise conformity  with  "  in  the  day  of  Elohim's  creating 
Adam,"  after  the  title  "  the  generations  of  Adam.** 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN   (CII.    II.    4-III.    24)      11 

2.  If  ii.  4a  is  a  subscription  to  the  preceding  section, 
then  ii.  4b-iv.  26  is  the  only  portion  of  the  book  without 
a  title,  while  i.  1-ii.  3  will  have  two  titles,  one  which  is 
entirely  appropriate  at  the  beginning  (i.  1),  and  one  which 
is  altogether  unsuitable  at  the  end. 

3.  On  the  divisive  hypothesis  the  additional  incongru- 
ity results,  that  when  the  section  ascribed  to  J  (ii.  4b-cli. 
iv.)  is  excluded,  and  the  connection  restored,  as  it  origi- 
nally existed  in  P,  ii.  4a  will  be  immediately  followed  by 
V.  1,  and  thus  two  titles  will  have  stood  in  direct  juxta- 
position. 

Now  what  does  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of 
the  earth  mean  ?  It  has  sometimes  been  interpreted  to 
mean  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  heavens  and  of  the 
earth,  such  as  we  find  in  ch.  i.,  to  which  it  is  then  claimed 
that  this  must  be  attached  as  explanatory  of  the  contents 
of  that  chapter.  But  neither  the  words  themselves  nor 
their  usage  elsewhere  will  admit  of  this  interpretation. 

"  The  book  of  the  generations  of  Adam  "  (v.  1)  is  a  list 
of  the  descendants  of  Adam.  "  The  generations  of  Noah  " 
(vi.  9)  records  the  history  of  Noah's  family.  "  The  gener- 
ations of  the  sons  of  Noah  "  (x.  1)  and  "  the  generations 
of  Shem"  (xi.  10),  trace  the  various  lines  of  their  descend- 
ants. And  so  it  is  uniformly.  "  The  generations  of  A 
or  B  "  do  not  detail  his  ancestry  or  his  origin,  but  either 
give  the  history  of  his  immediate  family  or  the  continu- 
ous line  of  his  descendants.  And  this  the  proper  signifi- 
cation of  the  Hebrew  word  so  rendered  necessarily  de- 
mands. It  denotes  "  generations  "  in  the  sense  of  that 
which  is  generated  or  begotten,  the  ofispring  of  a  pro- 
genitor. 

Accordingly  this  title,  "  the  generations  of  the  heaven 
and  the  earth,"  must  announce  as  the  subject  of  the  sec- 
tion which  it  introduces  not  an  account  of  the  way  in 
which  the  heaven  and  the  earth  were  themselves  brought 


12     GENERATIONS  OF  HEAVEN  AND  EARTH 

into  being,  but  an  account  of  the  offspring  of  heaven  and 
earth ;  in  other  words,  of  man  who  is  the  child  of  both 
worlds,  his  body  formed  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  his  soul 
of  heavenly  origin,  inbreathed  by  God  himself.  And  so 
the  sections  proceed  regularly.  First,  Gen.  i.  1,  "In 
the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  the 
title  announcing  that  the  theme  of  the  first  chapter  is 
the  creation.  Then  ii.  4,  "  The  generations  of  the  heav- 
ens and  the  earth,"  announcing  that  the  theme  of  what 
follows  is  the  offspring  of  heaven  and  earth,  or  the  his- 
tory of  Adam  and  his  family.  Then  v.  1,  "  The  genera- 
tions of  Adam,"  in  which  his  descendants  are  traced  to 
Noah  and  his  sons.  Then  vi.  4,  "  The  generations  of 
Noah,"  or  the  history  of  Noah's  family,  and  so  on  to  the 
end  of  the  book. 

But  here  we  are  met  by  Dr.  Dillmann  and  other  lead- 
ing advocates  of  the  divisive  hypothesis,  who  say,  It  is 
true  that  "  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  " 
denote  that  which  has  sprung  from  the  heavens  and  the 
earth ;  but  this  is  the  title  of  ch.  i.  nevertheless,  which 
records  how  grass  and  trees  and  animals  and  man  came 
forth  from  the  earth,  and  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  made 
their  appearance  in  the  heavens.  This  must,  therefore, 
originally  have  stood  at  the  beginning  of  ch.  i.,  and  it  has 
been  transposed  to  its  present  position  by  the  redactor. 
This  shows  what  a  useful  person  the  redactor  is  in  the 
service  of  the  critics.  Here  is  a  clause  which  is  seriously 
in  their  way  where  it  stands  at  present.  It  rivets  the 
second  chapter  to  the  first  in  more  ways  than  one.  It 
declares  positively  that  ch.  ii.  is  not  a  parallel  account  of 
the  creation  taken  from  another  source,  but  is  a  sequel 
to  the  narrative  of  the  creation  already  given  in  ch.  i. 
Moreover,  this  formula,  which  the  critics  tell  us  is  one  of 
the  marks  of  the  document  P,  to  which  the  first  chapter 
is  alleged  to  belong,  as  distinguished  from  the  document 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN   (CH.   II.  4-III.   24)       13 

J,  to  whicla  the  section  before  us  is  referred,  and  whose 
words  are  the  words  of  P  and  not  of  J,  is  here  found  at- 
tached to  the  wrong  document,  thus  annulling  in  certain 
marked  respects  their  favorite  argument  from  diction  and 
style.  It  is  an  obstacle  to  be  gotten  rid  of,  therefore,  at 
all  hazards.  The  aid  of  the  redactor  is  accordingly 
called  in,  and  the  disturbing  clause  is  spirited  away  to  a 
safe  distance  and  located  at  the  beginning  of  the  first 
chapter,  instead  of  the  beginning  of  the  second  section, 
where  it  actually  stands. 

Only  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  redactor  is  of  no  avail 
in  the  present  instance.  The  clause  in  question  never 
could  have  been  the  title  of  ch.  i.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  must  first  be  brought  into  exist- 
ence before  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
can  be  spoken  of,  just  as  Adam  and  Noah  must  precede 
the  generations  of  Adam  and  the  generations  of  Noah. 
Besides,  it  would  be  altogether  inappropriate  as  a  title  of 
ch.  i.  The  firmament  and  the  heavenly  bodies,  the  seas 
and  the  dry  land,  the  work  of  the  first  four  days,  are 
identical  with  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  not  their  oft- 
spring.  The  creating  and  shaping  of  the  material  uni- 
verse cannot  with  propriety  be  included  under  the  "  gen- 
erations "  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  the  writer  of 
the  chapter  could  never  have  expressed  its  purport  in 
such  terms.  And  even  the  vegetable  and  animal  prod- 
ucts, which  by  creative  fiat  were  made  to  issue  from  the 
earth  on  the  third,  fifth,  and  sixth  days,  were  wholly  of 
an  earthly,  not  a  heavenly,  mould.  And  the  title,  if  un- 
derstood of  such  products,  would  stand  in  no  relation  to 
the  subsequent  titles  of  the  book.  Grass  and  trees  and 
animals  supply  no  stepping-stone  to  the  next  title,  the 
Generations  of  Adam.  It  is  only  Adam  himself  that  can 
do  this.  It  is  not  until  ver.  26  that  the  creation  of  man 
is  reached.     And  man  in  ch.  i.  is  considered  simply  in  his 


14     GENERATIONS  OF  HEAVEN  AND  EARTH 

place  in  the  general  scheme  of  created  things.  He  is  in- 
troduced into  the  world ;  but  there  is  no  record  of  what 
befell  him  or  his  family,  such  as  we  are  authorized  to  ex- 
pect, such  as  is  in  fact  given  in  ii.  4b-iv.  26.  Every  sim- 
ilar title  in  Genesis  is  followed  either  by  a  history  of  the 
immediate  offspring  or  by  successive  generations  of  de- 
scendants. 

The  clause  which  we  have  been  considering  is  an  ob- 
stacle to  the  partition  of  the  first  two  chapters  which  it 
has  not  been  possible  to  remove  by  any  critical  device. 
It  plainly  declares  the  subject  of  the  second  section  to 
be  not  the  creation  of  the  world,  but  the  formation  of 
man  and  the  first  stage  of  human  history. 

It  remains  to  be  added  that  an  examination  of  the 
second  section  itseK  will  show  that  it  does  not  in  point 
of  fact  contain  a  fresh  account  of  the  creation.  The 
opening  words,  "  In  the  day  that  Jehovah  God  made  the 
earth  and  the  heavens,"  do  not  introduce  an  account  of 
making  earth  and  heaven,  but  presuppose  it  as  having 
already  taken  place,  and  the  writer  proceeds  to  indicate 
the  condition  of  things  when  it  was  done  and  what  fol- 
lowed subsequently.  No  mention  is  made  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  earth  or  the  production  of  the  dry  land  ;  none 
of  the  sea  and  its  occupants  ;  none  of  the  firmament  or  of 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  ;  none  of  covering  the  earth  with 
its  varied  vegetation,  but  only  of  planting  a  garden  in 
Eden  and  making  its  trees  grow  from  the  ground  (vs.  8,  9). 
When  banished  from  Eden,  man  was  to  eat  "  the  herb  of 
the  field  "  (iii.  18),  whose  existence  is  thus  assumed,  but 
whose  production  is  only  spoken  of  in  ch.  i.  These  par- 
ticulars could  not  be  omitted  from  an  account  of  the  crea- 
tion. To  say,  as  is  done  by  Dr.  Dillmann,  that  they  may 
originally  have  been  contained  inch,  ii.,  but  were  omitted 
by  R  because  they  were  treated  sufliciently  in  ch.  i.,  is  to 
make   an    assumption   without   a   particle   of   evidence, 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN    (CH.    II.  4-III.   24)       15 

wliich.  amounts  simply  to  a  confession  that  ch.  ii.  is  not 
what  it  would  have  been  if  the  writer  had  intended  to 
give  a  narrative  of  the  creation,  and  that  its  omissions 
are  with  definite  reference  to  the  contents  of  ch.  i.  In 
other  words,  ch.  ii.  has  no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  sep- 
arate and  complete  account  of  the  creation ;  and  it  has 
not  been  prepared  independently  of  ch.  i.,  but  is  design- 
edly supplementary  to  it. 

Chapter  ii.  has  thus  far  been  considered  negatively, 
and  it  has  been  shown  what  it  is  not.  It  is  not  a  second 
account  of  the  creation  ;  and  it  has  not  been  prepared  in- 
dependently of  ch.  i.  and  without  regard  to  the  contents 
of  that  first  chapter.  It  is  now  in  order  to  state  posi- 
tively what  ch.  ii.  actually  is.  It  is  evidently  through- 
out preliminary  to  ch.  iii.,  the  narrative  of  the  fall.  In 
order  to  make  this  intelligible  it  was  necessary  to  ex- 
plain (1),  the  two  constituents  of  man's  nature,  his  body 
formed  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  the  breath  of  life 
imparted  directly  by  God  himself  (ver.  7).  It  was  neces- 
sary that  this  should  be  known,  that  the  reader  might 
comprehend  on  the  one  hand  the  potential  immortality 
set  within  his  reach,  and  on  the  other  the  sentence  ac- 
tually incurred  that  dust  must  return  to  dust  (iii.  19). 
(2)  The  locality,  which  was  the  scene  of  the  temptation 
and  fall,  the  garden  of  Eden,  with  its  tree  of  life  and  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  (vs.  8-17).  (3) 
The  actors,  Adam  and  Eve,  in  their  superiority  to  the 
rest  of  the  creation,  and  their  relation  to  each  other  (vs. 
18-25).  These  particulars  could  not  have  been  incor- 
porated in  ch.  i.  without  marring  its  symmetry.  That 
deals  with  the  creation  of  the  world  at  large.  Every- 
thing is  on  a  universal  scale.  And  to  introduce  a  de- 
tailed description  of  the  garden  of  Eden,  with  its  arrange- 
ments and  man's  position  in  it,  would  have  been  quite 
inappropriate.     The  plan  and  purpose  of  ch.  i.  made  it 


IC     GENERATIONS  OF  HEAVEN  AND  EARTH 

necessary  to  reserve  this  for  the  following  section,  and 
it  is  accordingly  given  in  cli,  ii. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  that  all  compari- 
sons made,  or  contrasts  drawn,  between  ch.  i.  and  ch.  ii. 
on  the  assumption  that  they  are  separate  and  indepen- 
dent accounts  of  the  same  transaction  are  necessarily  fal- 
lacious. In  the  one  the  scene  embraces  the  whole  world 
with  all  that  it  contains.  In  the  other  it  is  limited  to  the 
garden  of  Eden,  which  is  fitted  up  for  the  habitation  of 
the  first  human  pair.  The  first  advances  by  a  succession 
of  almighty  fiats  from  the  initial  production  of  inanimate 
matter  to  the  culmination  of  the  Avhole  grand  process  in 
the  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of  God.  The  second 
deals  exclusively  with  the  primitive  state  of  man,  which 
is  minutely  explained  with  a  special  view  to  the  tempta- 
tion and  fall ;  all  is  on  the  plane  of  individual  life  and 
moves  steadily  forward  to  that  first  transgression  by 
which  man  lost  his  original  holiness  and  communion 
with  God.  The  second  chapter  is  thus  in  no  sense  par- 
allel to  the  first,  but  is  its  natural  sequel.  It  is  the  suc- 
ceeding scene  in  the  sacred  history,  the  next  act,  so  to 
speak,  in  the  divine  drama  which  is  here  transacting.  It 
introduces  the  reader  to  a  new  and  distinct  stage  in  the 
unfolding  of  that  plan  of  God  which  it  is  the  purpose  of 
the  book  of  Genesis  to  record. 

With  such  marked  differences  in  the  design  and  the 
contents  of  the  two  chapters,  it  follows,  of  course,  that  each 
has  a  character  of  its  own  distinct  from  the  other.  It  is 
very  easy  to  set  one  over  against  the  other  and  to  point 
out  their  distinctive  qualities.  But  the  dissimilar  feat- 
ures, which  so  readily  offer  themselves  to  the  observer, 
result  directly  and  necessarily  from  the  diversity  of  the 
subjects  respectively  treated  in  each,  and  require  no  as- 
sumption of  the  idiosyncrasies  of  different  writers  or  the 
peculiarities  of  separate  documents  to  account  for  them. 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MATST   (CII.    IT.  4-III.   24)       17 

Thus,  for  example,  if  it  be  said  with  Dr.  Harper  ("  He- 
braica,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  25-27)  that  ch.  i.  is  "  generic,"  dealing 
with  species  and  classes,  and  ch.  ii.  is  "individual,"  how 
could  thej  be  otherwise,  considering  their  respective 
themes  ?  One  records  the  formation  of  the  world  as  a 
whole,  and  of  the  various  orders  of  beings  that  are 
in  it ;  the  other  deals  specifically  with  the  first  human 
pair. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  first  chapter  is  "  systematic," 
"  chronological,"  and  "  scientific,"  the  reason  is  that  the 
nature  of  its  subject  brings  these  features  into  marked 
prominence.  When  the  work  of  six  successive  days  is 
to  be  stated,  each  advancing  upon  the  preceding  by  reg- 
ular gradations,  and  together  embracing  all  the  various 
ranks  of  created  things,  the  subject  itself  prescribes  the 
mode  of  treatment  adapted  to  it,  which  must  be  system- 
atic, chronological,  and  scientific,  if  the  theme  proposed 
is  to  be  clearly  and  satisfactorily  presented.  But  why 
should  a  writer  who  shows  his  capacity  for  the  classifi- 
cation of  genera  and  species  where  his  subject  demands 
it,  lug  in  his  scientific  terms  or  methods  where  no  such 
classification  is  called  for  ?  If  he  has  pursued  a  chrono- 
logical method  in  ch.  i.,  where  the  subject  divides  itself 
into  successive  periods,  what  is  to  hinder  his  adoption  of 
a  topical  method  in  chs.  ii.  and  iii.,  where  he  groups  the 
various  incidents  and  particulars  with  masterly  skill,  and 
all  leads  as  directly  up  to  the  catastrophe  of  the  fall  as 
in  ch.  i.  all  marches  steadily  forward  to  the  Sabbath-day 
of  rest  ?  There  is  as  clear  evidence  of  system  in  the 
logical  order  of  the  narration  in  chs.  ii.  and  iii.  as  in  the 
chronological  order  of  ch.  i.  And  there  is  the  same 
graphic  power  and  masterly  presentation  in  the  grand 
and  majestic  tableaux  of  ch.  i.  as  in  the  simple  and 
touching  scenes  so  delicately  depicted  in  chs.  ii.  and  iii. 
When  it  is  said  that  ch.  ii.  is  "  picturesque  and  poet- 


18  GENERATIONS   OF   HEAA^EN   AND   EARTH 

ical,"  it  may  be  said  with  equal  propriety  that  ch.  i.  is 
sublimely  poetical.  The  scenes  are  drawn  in  bold  relief, 
and  stand  as  vividly  before  the  reader  as  anything  in  the 
chapters  that  follow ;  only  the  scenes  themselves  are  of 
a  different  description.  One  gives  the  impression  of  im- 
mensity and  power  and  vast  terrestrial  changes ;  the 
other  of  beauty  and  pathos  and  the  development  of  per- 
sonal character.  Cannot  the  same  writer  handle  diverse 
themes  ?  And  if  he  do,  must  he  not  be  expected  to  treat 
each  in  the  way  appropriate  to  itself  ? 

It  is  claimed  that  ch.  i.  deals  in  "  stereotyped " 
phrases  and  is  "  verbose  and  repetitious,"  while  the 
style  of  chs.  ii.  and  iii.  is  "  free  and  flowing."  This 
again  is  due  to  the  nature  of  the  subjects  with  which 
they  respectively  deal.  Ch.  i.  is  monumental,  conducted 
on  a  scale  of  vastness  and  magnificence,  and  its  charac- 
ters are  massive  and  unyielding  as  if  carved  in  granite. 
Chs.  ii.  and  iii.  deal  with  plastic  forms  of  quiet  beauty, 
the  charms  of  paradise,  the  fateful  experiences  of  Adam 
and  Eve.  In  the  onward  progress  of  creation  aU  is  con- 
ducted by  the  word  of  omnipotence,  to  which  the  result 
precisely  corresponds.  To  mark  this  correspondence  in 
the  most  emphatic  manner,  the  command  is  issued  in 
explicit  terms  ;  and  the  answering  result,  which  exactly 
matches  it,  is  described  in  identical  language.  There  are, 
besides,  certain  constant  and  abiding  features,  which 
characterize  the  creative  work  from  first  to  last,  and 
which  abide  the  same  in  the  midst  of  all  the  majestic 
changes  which  are  going  forward.  There  is  the  regu- 
lar recurrence  of  each  creative  day,  of  the  daily  putting 
forth  of  almighty  jDower,  of  God's  approval  of  his  work 
which  perfectly  represents  the  divine  idea,  the  name 
given  to  indicate  its  character,  the  blessing  bestowed  to 
enable  it  to  accomplish  its  end.  To  mark  all  this  in  the 
most  emphatic  manner,  the   identical   phrases   are  re- 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN   (CH.   II.    4-III.   24)       19 

peated  througliout  from  first  to  last.  The  solemn  and 
impressive  monotone,  which  thus  runs  through  the 
whole,  heightens  the  grandeur  of  the  description,  and  is 
suggestive  of  that  divine  serenity  which  steadily  and  mi- 
deviatingly  moves  onward  in  its  appointed  course,  while 
the  ponderous  periods  aptly  befit  the  massive  objects 
with  which  they  deal.  There  is  no  call  for  such  a  style 
in  simple  narrative  like  ch.  ii.,  where  it  would  be  utterly 
out  of  place  and  stilted  in  the  extreme.  That  the  char- 
acteristics which  have  been  referred  to  are  due  to  the 
subject  of  ch.  i.,  and  not  to  some  imaginary  peculiarity 
of  the  writer,  is  plain,  even  if  the  critical  partition  of 
Genesis  were  accepted.  For  the  narratives,  which  the 
critics  assign  to  the  same  document  as  ch.  i.,  differ  as 
widely  from  it  as  ch.  ii.  does. 

In  like  manner  Dr.  Dillmann  urges,  in  proof  of  a  di- 
versity of  writers,  that  the  author  of  ch.  i.  "  restricts 
himself  to  the  great  facts  without  entering  in  an  explan- 
atory way  into  particular  details,"  and  that  he  uses  "  a 
ceremonious,  solemn,  formal  style  of  writing,"  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  "evenness"  of  chs.  ii.  and  iii.  This 
is  sufiiciently  answered  in  what  has  been  already  said. 
The  difference  arises  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  not 
from  the  habit  of  the  writer.  As  Dr.  Dillmann  himself 
justly  says  :  "  The  author  in  writing  was  fully  conscious 
of  the  unique  loftiness  of  his  subject  ;  there  is  not  a 
word  too  much,  yet  all  is  clear  and  well  defined  ;  no- 
where is  there  anything  artificial  and  far-fetched ;  only 
once  in  an  appropriate  place  he  allows  himself  to  rise  to 
elevated  poetic  speech  (ver.  27)  ;  even  the  expressions 
savoring  of  a  remote  antiquity,  which  he  here  and  there 
employs  (vs.  2,  24),  have  evidently  come  down  to  him 
with  the  matter  from  the  olden  time,  and  serve  admi- 
rably to  enhance  the  impression  of  exalted  dignity." 

It  is  said  that  ch.  i.  proceeds  from  the  lower  to  the 


20  GENERATIONS   OF  HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

biglier,  ending  with  man  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  ch.  ii. 
begins  with  the  highest,  viz.,  with  man,  and  proceeds  to 
the  lower  forms  of  life.  But  as  ch.  ii.  continues  the  his- 
tory begun  in  ch.  i.,  it  natm-ally  starts  where  ch.  i.  ends, 
that  is  to  say,  with  the  creation  of  man,  especially  as  the 
whole  object  of  the  chapter  is  to  depict  his  primitive 
condition. 

These  various  contrasts  between  ch.  i.  and  ii.  explain 
themselves  at  once,  as  has  now  been  shown  from  the  di- 
versity of  theme..  They  could  only  be  supposed  to  lend 
support  to  the  critical  hypothesis  of  different  documents 
on  the  false  assumption  that  the  theme  of  both  chapters 
was  the  same. 

NO  DISCREPANCIES. 

While  each  of  these  chapters  pursues  consistently  and 
steadily  its  own  proper  aim,  they  have  certain  points  of 
contact,  in  which  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  second 
chapter  supplements  the  first,  but  there  is  no  discrep- 
ancy between  them.  In  fact  it  is  as  inconsistent  with 
the  document  hypothesis  as  it  is  with  that  of  unity  of 
authorship  to  suj)pose  that  we  have  here  two  divergent 
stories  of  the  creation.  The  redactor  does  not  place 
them  side  by  side,  as  two  varying  accounts,  which  he 
makes  no  attempt  to  reconcile,  but  lays  before  his  read- 
ers precisely  as  he  found  them.  There  is  no  intimation 
that  they  are  alternatives,  one  or  the  other  of  which  may 
be  accepted  at  pleasure.  On  the  contrary,  chs.  i.  and  ii. 
are  recorded  as  equally  true  and  to  be  credited  alike. 
The  inference  cannot  reasonably  be  avoided  that  the  re- 
dactor, if  there  was  one,  saw  no  inconsisteucy  in  these 
narratives.  Elsewhere  the  critics  tell  us  he  has  corrected 
divergent  accounts  into  harmony.  He  could  have  seen 
no  need  of  correction  here,  for  he  has  made  none.     The 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN    (CH.   II.  4-III.    24)      21 

case  is  supposable  indeed  that  some  minute  and  subtle 
inconsistency  may  have  escaped  his  notice.  But  there 
can  be  no  open  or  glaring  inconsistency,  or  he  would 
have  detected  and  removed  it,  or  at  least  remarked  upon 
it.  To  suppose  otherwise  is  to  charge  him  with  defi- 
ciency in  ordinary-  intelligence. 

The  first  chapter  continues  the  narrative  of  the  crea- 
tion until  the  crowning-piece  was  put  upon  the  work  by 
making  man  in  the  image  of  God,  and  giving  him,  as 
God's  vicegerent,  dominion  over  all  in  this  lower  world. 
To  prepare  the  way  for  the  history  of  the  temptation  and 
fall,  Avhicli  comes  next  in  order,  it  was  needful  to  give 
further  particulars  respecting  man's  primitive  condition, 
which  it  would  have  been  incongruous  to  include  in  the 
general  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world  in  ch.  i. 
These  are  accordingly  supplied  in  ch.  ii. 

One  of  these  particulars  is  his  location  in  the  garden 
of  Eden.  In  order  to  lead  up  in  a  simple  and  natural 
way  to  the  description  of  this  garden,  the  writer  reminds 
his  readers,  in  precise  conformity  with  ch.  i.,  that  when 
heaven  and  earth  w^ere  first  made  the  latter  contained 
nothing  for  the  subsistence  of  man.  Ch.  ii.  4,  5  should  be 
rendered,  "  In  the  day  that  Jehovah  God  made  earth  and 
heaven  no  bush  of  the  field  was  yet  in  the  earth,  and  no 
herb  of  the  field  had  yet  sprung  up."  There  was  neither 
bush  nor  herb  to  serve  man  for  food.  The  threefold 
classification  of  i.  11,  12 — grass,  herb,  and  tree— is  not 
repeated  here,  for  grass  was  the  food  of  beasts,  and  there- 
fore not  to  the  purpose.  "Bush"  is  used  rather  than 
"  tree,"  to  make  the  negative  stronger.  There  Avas  not 
only  no  tree,  there  was  not  even  a  bush.  Subsequently 
trees  (ii.  9)  and  herbs  (iii.  18)  are  named,  as  the  plants 
yielding  food  for  human  use,  just  as  in  i.  29. 

The  suggestion  that  in  ch.  i.  both  trees  and  herbs  are 
assigned  to  man  as  his  food  from  the  beginning,  while  in 


22  GENERATIONS    OF    HEAVEN   AND    EARTH 

clis.  ii.,  iii.  he  eats  tlie  fruit  of  trees  in  Eden,  and  is 
condemned  to  eat  herbs  after  his  fall  (iii.  18),  overlooks 
the  real  point  of  contrast,  which  is  not  between  trees  and 
herbs,  but  between  the  trees  of  the  garden  and  the  herb 
of  the  field,  between  the  tillage  of  paradise  and  gaining 
his  bread  by  the  sweat  of  his  face  from  a  reluctant  soil 
bringing  forth  thistles  and  thorns.  Only  trees  are  ex- 
pressly spoken  of  in  Eden,  because  one  tree  was  the  test 
of  obedience,  and  another  the  pledge  of  immortal  life  ; 
but  there  is  no  more  reason  for  denying  the  existence  of 
esculent  herbs  in  paradise  than  for  assuming  that  there 
were  no  fruit-trees  outside  of  it. 

The  form  of  expression,  "  In  the  day  that  Jehovah 
God  made  earth  and  heaven,"  has  given  occasion  to  cavil, 
as  though  that  Avas  here  assigned  to  one  day,  which  ch.  i. 
divides  between  the  second  and  third  creative  days.  It 
might  as  well  be  said  that  Num.  iii.  1,  "  In  the  day  that 
Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses  in  Mount  Sinai  "  implies  that 
all  the  revelations  given  to  Moses  at  Sinai  were  made 
within  the  compass  of  a  single  day  ;  or  that  "  the  day  of 
adversity  "  means  a  jDeriod  of  twenty-four  hours.  The 
use  of  "  day,"  in  the  general  sense  of  "  time,"  is  too  fa- 
miliar to  require  further  comment. 

The  reason  given  for  the  absence  of  food-bearing 
plants  is  twofold ;  there  was  no  rain  to  moisten  the 
earth,  and  no  man  to  till  the  ground.^  There  is  no  vari- 
ance here  with  ch.  i.  The  suggestion  that  if  the  land 
had  just  emerged   from  the  water,  rain  would  not  be 

'  My  friend,  Dr.  C.  M.  Mead,  of  Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  in 
a  casual  conversation  on  this  subject  suggested  what,  if  my  memory 
serves  me,  was  also  maintained  by  Ebrard  in  a  little  tract  on  Natural 
Science  and  the  Bible,  issued  several  years  since,  that  the  last  clause 
of  11.  5  is  not  connected  with  that  which  immediately  precedes. 
' '  There  was  no  plant  (for  there  had  been  no  rain),  and  there  was  no 
man."  Upon  this  construction  there  is  not  even  the  semblance  of  an 
intimation  that  man  existed  before  plants. 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN    (CH.    II.  4-III.    24)      23 

needed,  leaves  out  of  view  that  according  to  i.  9,  10,  the 
separation  of  land  and  water  was  complete,  and  the  earth 
was  dry  land,  before  any  plants  appeared  upon  its  sur- 
face. A  well-watered  garden  with  ever-flowing  streams 
was  to  be  the  abode  of  man ;  in  anticipation  of  this  it 
was  natural  to  refer  to  the  need  of  rain.  And  there  is 
no  impUcation  that  man  was  made  prior  to  the  existence 
of  vegetation,  contrary  to  i.  12,  27.     For 

1.  Ch.  ii,  alleges  nothing  respecting  the  relative  prior- 
ity of  man  or  plants.  It  does  not  deal  with  the  general 
vegetation  of  the  globe  any  further  than  to  carry  us  back 
to  a  time  when  it  did  not  exist.  Of  its  actual  production 
ch.  ii.  says  nothing.  Its  positive  statement  is  restricted 
to  the  trees  of  the  garden  of  Eden  (vs.  8,  9),  and  we  are 
nowhere  informed  that  these  were  brought  into  being  at 
the  same  time  with  vegetation  elsewhere.  Nothing  is 
said  of  the  origin  of  grass  and  herbs,  or  of  trees,  outside 
of  Eden,  except  in  ch.  i.  Dr.  Dillmanu  admits  this.  He 
says :  "  One  would  expect  that  in  what  follows,  either 
before  or  after  ver.  7,  mention  should  be  made  of  the 
production  of  the  vegetable  world,  and  completing  the 
formation  of  the  world  itself.  But  there  is  nothing  of 
the  sort.  There  can  hardly  have  been  such  a  gap  orig- 
inally ;  it  rather  appears  that  something  has  been  omitted 
by  R,  either  because  it  seemed  a  needless  repetition  after 
ch.  i.,  or  disagreed  with  ch.  i."  The  passage  does  not  ful- 
fil the  critics'  expectation,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the 
writer  had  no  such  intention  as  they  impute  to  him.  He 
is  not  giving  another  account  of  the  creation.  He  is 
merely  going  to  speak  of  the  garden  of  Eden ;  and  that 
is  all  he  does. 

2.  The  existence  of  man  is  stated  to  be  a  condition  of 
that  of  plants  designed  for  human  use,  not  as  an  ante- 
cedent but  as  a  concomitant.  His  tillage  is  requisite  (ii. 
5),  not  to  their  production  but  to  their  subsequent  care 


24  GENERATIONS   OF   HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

and  cultivation.  Jehovah  planted  the  garden  and  made 
the  trees  grow  in  it,  and  then  set  man  to  till  it,  ver.  15, 
where  the  same  verb  is  used  as  in  ver.  5. 

3.  The  order  of  statement  is  plainly  not  that  of  time, 
but  of  association  in  thought.  Ver,  7,  man  is  formed  ; 
ver.  8,  the  garden  is  planted  and  man  put  in  it ;  ver.  9, 
trees  are  made  to  spring  up  there ;  ver.  15,  man  is  taken 
and  put  in  it.  We  cannot  suppose  the  writer's  meaning 
to  be  that  man  was  made  before  there  w^as  any  place  in 
which  to  put  him,  and  that  he  was  kept  in  suspense  until 
the  garden  was  planted  ;  that  he  was  then  jjut  there  be- 
fore the  trees  that  were  to  supply  him  with  food  had 
sprung  up ;  and  that  after  the  trees  were  in  readiness  he 
was  put  there  a  second  time.  It  is  easy  to  deduce  the 
most  preposterous  conclusions  from  a  writer's  words  by 
imputing  to  them  a  sense  which  he  never  intended.  In 
order  to  pave  the  way  for  an  account  of  the  primitive 
paradise,  he  had  spoken  of  the  earth  as  originally  desti- 
tute of  any  plants  on  which  man  might  subsist,  the  ex- 
istence of  such  plants  being  conditioned  on  that  of  man 
himself.  This  naturally  leads  him  to  speak,  first,  of  the 
formation  of  man  (ver.  7) ;  then  of  the  garden  in  which 
he  was  put  (ver.  8).  A  more  particular  description  of  the 
garden  is  then  given  (vs.  9-14),  and  the  narrative  is  again 
resumed  by  repeating  that  man  was  placed  there  (ver.  15). 
As  there  was  plainly  no  intention  to  note  the  strict 
chronological  succession  of  events,  it  cannot  in  fairness 
be  inferred  from  the  order  of  the  narrative  that  man  was 
made  prior  to  the  trees  and  plants  of  Eden,  much  less 

'  The  critics'  assumption  that  vs.  10-15  is  an  interpolation,  inasmuch 
as  the  description  of  the  garden  is  a  departure  from  strict  narrative 
which  is  afterward  resumed,  as  well  as  Budde's  notion  (Bibli?che  Ur- 
geschichte,  pp.  48  sqq.)  that  the  tree  of  life  is  to  be  erased  from  ver.  9 
and  elsewhere,  as  not  belonging  to  the  narrative  originally,  deserve 
notice  only  as  illustrating  the  perfectly  arbitrary  standard  of  genuine- 
ness which  is  set  up. 


PEIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN   (CH.    II.  4-III.    24)       25 

that  he  preceded  those  of  the  world  at  large,  of  which 
nothing  is  here  said. 

But  what  cannot  be  accomplished  by  the  order  of  the 
narrative  some  critics  propose  to  effect  by  means  of  a 
grammatical  construction.  They  put  vs.  5,  6,  in  a  paren- 
thesis, and  link  ver.  4  directly  to  ver.  7,  and  read  thus  : 
Ver.  4,  In  the  day  that  Jehovah  God  made  the  earth  and 
the  heavens  (ver.  5,  Now  no  bush  of  the  field  was  yet  in 
the  earth,  and  no  herb  of  the  field  had  yet  sprung  up ; 
for  Jehovah  God  had  not  caused  it  to  rain  upon  the  earth, 
and  there  was  not  a  man  to  till  the  ground.  Yer.  6,  And 
there  went  up  vapor  from  the  earth,  and  watered  the 
whole  face  of  the  ground).  Ver.  7,  Then  Jehovah  God 
formed  man,  etc.  The  meaning  will  then  be  :  "  In  the  day 
that  Jehovah  God  made  earth  and  heaven,  Jehovah  God 
formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  while  no  bush  of 
the  field  was  yet  in  the  earth,  and  no  herb  of  the  field 
had  yet  sprung  up."  But  apart  from  the  fact  that  the 
assumption  of  so  long  a  parenthesis  is  of  very  doubtful 
propriety  in  Hebrew  construction  generally,  it  is  abso- 
lutely impossible  here.  Yer.  5  states  a  twofold  reason 
why  there  were  no  plants  adapted  to  human  use ;  there 
had  been  no  rain  and  there  was  no  man  to  use  them. 
The  first  of  these  conditions  is  supplied  in  ver.  6,  vapor 
rises,  and  falling  in  rain  waters  the  ground  ;  the  second, 
in  ver.  7,  man  is  made  ;  vs.  6  and  7  must  accordingly 
stand  in  like  relation  to  ver.  5,  so  that  ver.  6  cannot  be 
included  in  the  parenthesis  and  ver.  7  be  linked  back  to 
ver.  4. 

Furthermore,  ch.  ii.  does  not  contradict  ch.  i.  in  re- 
spect to  the  order  of  the  creation  of  man  and  of  the 
lower  animals.  The  allegation  that  it  does  rests  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  Hebrew  tense  here  used  necessarily 
implies  a  sequence  in  the  order  of  time,  which  is  not 
correct.    The  record  is  (ver.  19),  "  And  out  of  the  ground 


26     GENERATIONS  OF  HEAVEN  AND  EAETH 

Jehovah  God  formed  all  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and  all 
the  fowls  of  heaven,  and  brought  them  to  Adam."  Ac- 
cording to  Hebrew  usage  this  need  not  mean  that  the 
formation  of  the  birds  and  the  beasts  was  subsequent  to 
all  that  is  previously  recorded  in  the  chapter,  or  that  they 
were  then  first  formed  with  the  view  of  providing  a  suit- 
able companion  for  Adam.  And  when  the  scope  of  the 
passage  is  duly  considered  it  will  be  seen  that  this  can- 
not be  its  meaning. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  Dr.  Delitzsch,  who  is  an 
adherent  of  the  document  hypothesis,  and  can  be  sus- 
pected of  no  bias  against  it,  and  who  in  all  the  former 
editions  of  his  "  Commentary  on  Genesis  "  found  ch.  i. 
and  ch.  ii.  at  variance  on  this  point,  in  the  last  edition, 
embodying  his  most  matured  views,  afiirms  that  there  is 
no  discrepancy  whatever,  that  "  et  formavit  .  .  .  et 
adduxit  =  et  cum  formasset  adduxit,"  and  that  this  is 
both  possible  in  point  of  style  and  consonant  to  the 
mode  of  writing  in  the  Bible  history. 

The  English  rendering  Avhich  best  suggests  the  rela- 
tion of  the  clauses  is,  "  Jehovah  God  having  formed  out 
of  the  ground  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl  of 
heaven,  brought  them  unto  the  man."  The  Hebrew 
phrase  suggests  that  forming  the  animals  preceded  their 
being  brought  to  the  man,  but  need  not  suggest  anything 
whatever  as  to  the  relation  of  time  between  their  forma- 
tion and  what  had  been  mentioned  just  before  in  the  nar- 
rative. In  numberless  passages  in  the  English  version 
of  the  Bible  similar  expressions  are  paraphrased  in  order 
to  express  this  subordination  of  the  first  verb  to  the 
second.  Thus  in  Gen.  iii.  6  the  Hebrew  reads,  "  And 
the  woman  saw  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food,  .  .  . 
and  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof,"  for  which  the  English 
version  correctly  substitutes, "  And  when  the  woman  saw 
.     .     .     she  took."     It  might  with   equal   propriety   be 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN   (CH.    II.  4-III.    24)       27 

rendered,  "  The  woman  seeing  tliat  the  tree  was  good  for 
food     .     .     .     took  of  the  fruit  thereof." 

Dr.  Dillmann  admits  that  the  tense  here  used  might 
antedate  what  immediately  precedes,  but  insists  that  ver. 
18,  "  I  will  make  him  an  help  meet  for  him,"  implies  that 
the  animals  were  now  made  as  well  as  brought  to  Adam. 
But  to  suppose  that  the  beasts  and  birds  were  made  in 
execution  of  this  divine  purpose  is  not  only  a  grotesque 
conception  in  itself,  but  involves  the  incongruity  that  the 
Lord's  first  attempts  were  failures.  If  there  are  critics 
who  account  this  "  the  natural  interpretation,"  it  is  in 
the  face  of  the  whole  Israelitish  conception  of  God  as 
expressed  by  every  writer  in  the  Old  Testament.  Ob- 
serve that  God's  original  purpose,  as  here  announced,  is 
not  I  will  make  him  a  comjianion  of  some  sort,  or  such  a 
companion  as  he  may  be  willing  to  have,  but  I  will  make 
him  an  help  meet  for  him,  or,  more  exactly  rendered,  a 
help  corresponding  to  him,  a  precise  counterpart  to  him- 
self. The  beasts  were  brought  to  Adam  not  as  the  com- 
panion intended  for  him,  but  "  to  see  what  he  would  call 
them,"  i.e.,  to  let  them  make  their  impression  on  him  and 
thus  awaken  in  his  mind  a  sense  both  of  his  need  of  com- 
panionship and  of  their  mifitness  for  the  purpose.  When 
this  had  been  accomplished  Eve  was  made.  The  ani- 
mals are  here  regarded  simply  with  a  view  to  this  end. 
If  the  writer  were  describing  the  creation  of  the  inferior 
animals  as  such,  he  would  speak  of  all  the  orders  of  liv- 
ing things,  not  neglecting  reptiles  and  aquatic  animals. 

The  Lord  made  the  birds  and  beasts  and  brought  them 
to  Adam.  The  main  point  is  that  they  were  brought  to 
Adam.  It  was  of  no  consequence,  so  far  as  the  imme- 
diate purpose  of  the  narrative  is  concerned,  when  they 
were  made,  whether  before  Adam  or  after,  and  the  mere 
order  of  statement  cannot  in  fairness  be  pressed  as 
though  it  determined  the  order  of  time  in  this  particu- 


28     GENERATIONS  OF  HEAVEN  AND  EARTH 

lar.  If,  however,  this  is  insisted  upon,  and  we  are  told 
that  according  to  the  "  natural  interpretation "  of  this 
jDassage  it  teaches  that  the  birds  and  beasts  were  not 
made  until  after  Adam,  then  it  must  be  said  that  the 
same  sort  of  "  natm*al  interpretation  "  will  create  absurd- 
ities and  contradictions  in  many  other  passages  beside. 
Thus  in  Gen.  xxiv.  64,  65,  "  Kebekah  saw  Isaac  and  light- 
ed off  the  camel,  and  she  said  to  the  servant,  What  man 
is  this,  and  the  servant  said.  It  is  my  master."  Here,  if 
the  order  of  statement  is  made  the  order  of  time,  Ke- 
bekah alighted,  out  of  respect  to  her  future  husband,  be- 
fore she  had  inquired  and  learned  who  the  man  was  that 
she  saw.  So  Ex.  iv.  31,  "  And  the  people  believed  and 
they  heard,  .  .  .  and  they  bowed  their  heads  and  wor- 
shipped." According  to  this  the  people  believed  the 
words  of  Moses  and  Aaron  before  they  heard  them.  It 
is  said  of  the  men  sent  by  Joshua  to  spy  out  Jericho, 
(Josh.  ii.  22),  "  They  came  unto  the  mountain  and  abode 
there  three  days  until  the  pursuers  were  returned ;  and 
the  pursuers  sought  them  and  found  them  not."  From 
which  it  appears  that  the  pursuers  returned  from  their 
unsuccessful  search  before  their  search  was  begun.  The 
old  prophet  in  Bethel  asked  his  sons  about  the  man  of 
God  who  came  from  Judah  (1  Kin.  xiii.  12),  "  What  way 
went  he?  And  his  sons  saw  what  way  the  man  of  God 
went."  Here  "saw  "  is  plainly  equivalent  to  "  had  seen," 
since  the  man  had  left  some  time  before.  Isa.  xxxvii. 
2-5,  Hezekiah  sent  Eliakim  and  others  to  Isaiah,  and 
they  said  unto  him.  Thus  saitli  Hezekiali  so  and  so  : 
and  the  servants  of  Hezekiah  came  to  Isaiah  and  Isaiah 
said  unto  them,  etc.  That  is,  they  told  Isaiah  what  they 
had  been  bidden  to  say  before  they  came  to  him.  Dent, 
xxxi.  9,  "  And  Moses  wrote  this  law  and  delivered  it 
unto  the  priests,"  i.e.,  he  delivered  to  them  the  law 
which  he  had  written  ;  the  delivery  of  the  law  was  subse- 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN    (CH.    II.  4-III.   24)      29 

quent  to  the  address  to  Joshua  (vers.  7,  8),  but  not  the 
writing  of  it. 

Now,  any  candid  man  may  judge  whether  declining  to 
accept  a  principle  of  interpretation  which  leads  to  such 
absurd  results  can  be  called  wresting  Scripture  from  its 
natural  sense?  If  not,  then  no  suspicion  of  wresting 
Scripture  language  can  possibly  attach  to  the  assertion 
that  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  contrariety  between  ch,  i. 
and  ch.  ii.  in  respect  to  the  order  of  creation. 

It  is  clear  that  the  alleged  inconsistencies  do  not  exist 
in  the  record  but  are  of  the  critics'  own  making.  It  is 
surprising  that  they  do  not  see  that  in  their  eagerness  to 
create  discrepancies  in  evidence  of  a  diversity  of  writers 
they  are  cutting  away  the  ground  beneath  their  own 
feet.  Glaring  discrepancies  might  consist  with  the  frag- 
mentary bat  not  with  the  documentary  hyjjothesis.  The 
manner  in  which  these  documents  are  supposed  to  be 
woven  together  demands  a  high  degree  of  skill  and  intel- 
ligence in  the  redactor ;  and  to  allege  at  the  same  time 
that  "he  did  not  have  insight  sufficient  to  enable  him  to 
see  that  he  was  all  the  time  committing  grave  blunders  " 
is  self-contradictory. 

In  the  diction  of  these  chapters  Dillmann  notes  the 
following  words  and  phrases  as  indicative  of  J : 

1.  liW  make  or  'yi'^form,  instead  of  K'na  create,  as  in  ch.  i. 
But  "  make  "  is  used  ten  times  in  the  first  section,  and  of 
the  same  things  as  "  create,"  cf.  i.  1  with  vs.  7,  8 ;  i.  26 
with  ver.  27  ;  i.  21  with  ver.  25,  ii.  3.  In  ch.  i.  the  promi- 
nent thought  is  that  of  the  immediate  exercise  of  divine 
almighty  power,  hence,  ver.  1,  "  God  created  the  heaven 
and  the  earth ; "  ver.  21,  "  created  whales  and  winged  fowl ; " 
ver.  27,  "  created  man, "  so  v.  i.  2  ;  "  all  which  God  created  " 
ii.  3 ;  and  these  are  all  the  P  passages  in  which  the  word 
occurs.  Ch.  ii.  directs  attention  to  the  material,  of  which 
the  bodies  were  composed ;  hence,  ver.  7,  "  formed  man 


30     GENERATIONS  OF  HEAVEN"  AND  EARTH 

of  dust ;  "  ver.  19,  "  formed  beasts  out  of  the  ground."  In 
Isa.  xliii.  1 ;  xlv.  7, 12,  18,  "  create,"  "  form,"  and  "  make  " 
are  used  together,  and  in  the  same  sentence,  of  God's 
creative  agency.  "  Form  "  occurs  nowhere  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch  except  in  this  chapter ;  in  the  only  other  instance 
in  which  the  creation  of  man  is  alhided  to  in  a  paragraph 
assigned  to  J,  Gen.  vi.  7  the  word  "  create  "  is  used ;  it 
likewise  occurs  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  10 ;  Num.  xvi.  30  J.  And  if 
the  absence  of  "  form  "  from  the  rest  of  J  has  no  signifi- 
cance, why  is  there  any  in  its  absence  from  P  ? 

2.  niTSin  n^n  beast  of  the  field  (ii.  19,  20;  iii.  1, 14)  instead 
of  y"is:n  xrT\  beast  of  the  earth,  as  i.  24,  25 ;  also  rnirn  niTD 
bush  of  the  field  (ii.  5),  n"7T^n  DTlJy  herb  of  the  field  (ii.  5  ;  iii. 
18).  The  open  field  is  here  in  tacit  contrast  with  the  en- 
closed and  cultivated  garden  ;  cf.  iii.  18.  "  Beast  of  the 
field  "  is  the  ordinary  phrase  throughout  the  Bible.  But 
when  terrestrial  are  contrasted  with  aquatic  animals 
(i.  21,  22),  and  especially  when  the  whole  broad  earth 
is  spoken  of,  they  are  naturally  called  "  beasts  of  the 
earth." 

3.  Dysn  this  time,  noio  (ii.  23).  See  chs.  xviii.,  xix., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  9. 

4.  "il33>a  because  (iii.  17).  See  chs.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  17.   "" 

5.  inbnb  not  to  (iii.  11).  See  chs.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of 
J,  No.  14.^ 

6.  nsi-T  rra  ivhat  is  this  (iii.  13).  See  ch.  xii.  10-22, 
Marks  of  J,'No.  7. 

7.  )^2^^  sorroiv,  toil  (iii.  16,  17) ;  it  occurs  but  once 
besides  in  the  Old  Testament  (v.  29),  and  Avith  express 
allusion  to  this  passage. 

8.  ir-ia  drive  out  (iii.  24).  See  ch.  xxi.  1-21,  Marks  of 
E,  No."5. 

9.  bipb  yaiSD  hearken  unto  the  voice  (iii.  17).  See  ch. 
xvi.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  8. 


PEIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN   (CH.    II.    4-III.   24)      31 

10.  na"in  nann  greatly  multiply  (iii.  16).  See  ch.  xvi., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  10. 

Jehovah  is  distinctively  the  God  of  revelation  and  of 
redemption  ;  hence  in  this  section,  where  God's  grace  to 
man  is  the  prominent  thought,  his  care  and  favor  be- 
stowed upon  him  in  his  original  estate,  the  primal  prom- 
ise of  mercy  after  the  fall,  and  the  goodness  mingled  with 
severity  which  marked  the  whole  ordering  of  his  condi- 
tion subsequentl}^,  that  salutary  course  of  discipline  which 
was  instituted  with  a  view  to  gracious  ends,  Jehovah  is 
appropriately  used.  At  the  same  time,  to  make  it  plain 
that  Jehovah  is  not  a  different  or  inferior  deity,  but  that 
the  God  of  grace  is  one  with  God  the  Creator,  Jehovah 
Elohim  are  here  combined.  In  the  interview  of  Eve  with 
the  serpent  (iii.  1-5),  however,  Elohim  is  used,  as  is  cus- 
tomary when  aliens  speak  or  are  spoken  to.  This  shows 
that  these  names  are  used  discriminatingly,  and  that  the 
employment  of  one  or  the  other  is  regulated  not  by  the 
mere  habit  of  different  writers,  but  by  their  suitableness 
to  the  subject-matter. 

It  is  alleged  that  a  different  conception  of  God  is  pre- 
sented in  this  section  from  that  which  is  found  in  the 
preceding.  "  Jehovah  forms  men  and  beasts,  breathes  the 
breath  of  life  into  man's  nostrils,  builds  a  rib  into  a  woman, 
plants  a  garden,  takes  a  man  and^M^s  him  into  it,  brings 
the  beasts  to  the  man,  lualks  in  the  cool  of  the  day,  speaks 
(iii.  22)  as  though  he  were  jealous  of  the  man."  But  as 
Elohim  and  Jehovah  are  words  of  different  signification 
and  represent  the  Most  High  under  different  aspects  of 
his  being,  they  must  when  used  correctly  and  with  regard 
to  their  proper  meaning  be  associated  with  different  con- 
ceptions of  God.  This  does  not  argue  a  diversity  of 
w^riters,  but  simply  that  the  divine  name  has  each  time 
been  selected  in  accordance  with  the  idea  to  be  expressed. 

Elohim  is  the  more  general  designation  of  God  as  the 


32  GENERATIONS   OF   HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

Creator  and  providential  Governor  of  the  world  and  of 
all  mankind.  Jeliovah  is  his  personal  name,  and  that  by 
which  he  has  made  himself  known  when  entering  into 
close  relations  with  men,  and  particularly  the  chosen  race, 
as  the  God  of  revelation  and  grace.  The  intimacy  thus 
established  between  the  Creator  and  the  creature  involves 
a  condescension  to  man  and  placing  himself  in  accord 
with  man,  which  requires  anthropomorphisms  for  its  ex- 
pression and  can  be  made  intelligible  in  no  other  way. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  inconsistency  between  the  an- 
throj)omorphisms  of  chs.  ii.,  iii.,  and  the  lofty  conceptions 
of  ch.  i.,  and  no  ground  whatever  for  assuming  that  they 
are  the  ideas  of  distinct  writers.  They  abound  alike  in 
the  Prophets  and  in  the  Psalms,  where  they  are  freely  in- 
termingled in  their  devout  utterances.  With  one  breath 
the  Psalmist  speaks  of  God  as  knowing  the  secrets  of  the 
heart  (xliv.  22),  and  with  the  next  calls  upon  him,  "  Awake, 
why  sleepest  thou?  "  (ver.  24).  Ps.  cxxxix.  links  with  the 
most  exalted  description  in  human  language  of  the  omni- 
presence and  omniscience  of  the  infinite  God  the  prayer, 
(ver.  23),  "  Search  me  and  knoAV  my  heart,"  as  though  it 
was  necessary  for  the  Most  High  to  make  a  careful  in- 
vestigation in  order  to  ascertain  what  is  hidden  there. 

It  should  be  observed  further  that  the  preceding  sec- 
tion, with  all  its  grandeur  and  simplicity,  has  its  anthro- 
pomorphisms likewise.  Each  creative  fiat  is  uttered 
in  human  language  (i.  3,  6  sqq.).  God  "  called  the  light 
Di"!  "  (i.  5),  giving  Hebrew  names  to  that  and  various  other 
objects.  He  "  saw  the  light  that  it  was  good  "  (i.  4),  thus 
inspecting  the  work  of  each  day  and  pronouncing  upon 
its  quality.  He  uttered  a  formula  of  blessing  upon  the 
various  orders  of  living  things  (i.  22,  28).  He  deliberated 
with  himself  prior  to  the  creation  of  man  (i.  26).  Man 
was  made  "in  the  image  of  God,"  an  expression  which 
has  been  wrested  to  imply  a  material  form.     Time  was 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN   (CH.    II.   4-III.   24)       33 

spent  upon  the  work,  and  this  was  divided  into  six  suc- 
cessive days,  like  so  many  working  periods  of  men. 
When  the  work  was  done,  God  rested  on  the  seventh 
day  (ii.  2) ;  and  thus  the  week  was  completed,  another 
human  measure  of  time.  All  this  is  anthropomorphic. 
He  who  would  speak  intelligibly  to  finite  comprehension 
of  the  infinite  God  must  use  anthropomorphisms.  The 
difference  is  not  of  kind,  but  of  degree. 


MUTUAL   RELATION   OF   THIS   AND   THE   FRECEDING   SECTION. 

The  inter-relation  between  these  sections  is  such  as  to 
show  that  they  cannot  be,  as  the  critics  claim,  from  sep- 
arate and  independent  documents. 

1.  The  distribution  of  the  matter  gives  evidence  of  pre- 
arrangement  and  cannot  be  purely  accidental.  The  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  heaven,  earth,  and  sea,  with  all  that 
they  contain,  is  described  in  ch.  i. ,  and  is  assumed  in  ch. 
ii.  The  latter  simply  gives  details,  which  were  necessa- 
rily passed  over  in  the  plan  of  the  former,  respecting  the 
separate  formation  of  man  and  woman  and  fitting  up  the 
garden  for  their  habitation.  Ch.  ii.  19  is  the  only  ap- 
parent exception  to  the  specific  and  limited  character  of 
this  section.  But  even  this  is  no  real  exception,  since  it 
is  obvious,  as  has  already  been  shown,  that  the  formation 
of  the  beasts  and  birds  is  only  incidentally  mentioned  as 
subordinate  to  the  principal  statement,  and  the  one  of 
chief  importance  in  the  connection  that  God  brought 
them  to  Adam  to  receive  their  names.  Again,  God  gave 
names  to  certain  things  in  ch.  i.  ;  Adam  gave  names  to 
others  in  chs.  ii.,  iii.  ;  and  these  are  precisely  adjusted  to 
one  another,  neither  duplicating  nor  omitting  any.  God 
gave  names  to  day  and  night,  heaven,  earth,  and  seas  (i. 
5,  8,  10),  and  to  Adam  (v.  1).  Adam  gave  names  to  the 
inferior  animals  (ii.  20),  and  to  Eve  (ii.  23  ;  iii.  20). 
3 


34  GENERATIONS   OF   HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

2.  The  title  ii.  4a  has  been  shown  to  belong  to  this 
section,  and  contains  explicit  reference  to  the  preceding 
of  which  this  is  declared  to  be  the  sequel.  And  in  the 
body  of  the  section  there  are  numerous  allusions  to,  or 
coincidences  with,  the  preceding  or  other  so-called  P  sec- 
tions. If  the  construction  of  i.  1  adopted  by  Dillmann 
be  correct,  there  is  a  striking  similarity  in  structure  be- 
tween i.  1,  2  P,  and  ii.  4b,  5  J,  "  in  the  beginning  when 
God  created,  etc.,  the  earth  was  waste  and  void,"  corre- 
sponding to  "  in  the  day  that  Jehovah  God  made,  etc.,  no 
bush  of  the  field  was  yet  in  the  earth."  J  ii.  4b  strikingly 
resembles  P  v.  lb  in  the  form  of  expression ;  so  do  i.  4a 
P  and  vi.  2a  J ;  i.  31a,  vi.  12a  P  and  viii.  13b  J ;  y^t^  earth, 
without  the  article,  i.  24  P,  as  ii.  4  J.  The  paronomasia 
^nhT  ^nn  (i.  2),  ^nn^  ins  (i.  22, 28)  P  recalls  in  J  Q^i?  .  .  . 
T^izjifi  (ii.  7),  w^«  .  .' .  m|i?  (ver.  23),  iDi  ys  (iv.  14),  nsb5T  ns:^ 
(xviii.  27).  The  first  person  plural  used  of  God  (i.  26 
P),  notwithstanding  the  strictness  of  Hebrew  monotheism 
has  its  counterpart  in  J,  iii.  22 ;  xi.  7.  The  use  of  T\W 
made  (iii.  1  J)  in  reference  to  the  beasts,  instead  of  ns^ 
formed,  as  ii.  19  J,  is  a  reminiscence  of  i.  25  P.  D"i21"i3 
cherubim  (iii.  24  J)  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch  besides  only 
in  P. 

3.  The  repeated  occurrence  of  Jehovah  Elohim 
throughout  chs.  ii.,  iii.  is  with  evident  reference  to  ch.  i. 
This  combination  of  divine  names  occurs  nowhere  else 
with  such  regularity  and  frequency,  though  it  is  found 
in  a  few  other  passages,  e.g.,  Ex.  ix.  30 ;  2  Sam.  vii.  22, 
25 ;  1  Chron.  xvii.  16,  17 ;  Jon.  iv.  6 ;  cf.  1  Sam.  vi.  20. 
This  relieves  it  from  Dr.  Harper's  charge  ^  of  being  "  an 
un-Hebraic  expression,"  and  refutes  the  notion  of  Hup- 
feld  ^  that  it  is  adopted  here  without  reference  to  ch.  i., 
because  as  the  full  name  of  God  it  was  appropriate  to 
the  state  of  paradise,  from  which  there  was  a  descent  to 

'  Hebraica,  vol.  i.,  p.  23.  *  Quellen  der  Genesis,  p.  124. 


PRIMITIVE   STATE   OF   MAN    (CH.  II.   4-III.  24)        35 

Jehovah  alone  after  the  fall  ;  that  of  Reuss  ^  that  it  is 
indicative  of  a  special  document  distinct  from  both  P 
and  J,  and  that  of  Budde  ^  that  it  arose  from  the  com- 
bination of  two  documents,  one  of  which  used  the  name 
Jehovah  and  the  other  Elohim.  In  every  other  passage, 
in  which  it  is  found,  it  denotes  that  Jehovah  the  God  of 
Israel  is  likewise  Elohim  the  God  of  the  universe.  It 
must  have  the  same  meaning  here  ;  it  can  only  be  in- 
tended to  suggest  that  Jehovah,  now  first  introduced,  is 
identical  with  Elohim  before  spoken  of  in  ch.  i.  This 
is  admitted  by  the  critics  generally,  who  seek,  however,  to 
evade  the  natural  inference  of  the  common  authorship  of 
both  sections  by  the  assumption,  which  has  no  other 
basis  than  the  hypothesis  that  it  is  adduced  to  support, 
that  Elohim  was  inserted  b}^  R, 

And  while  it  is  plain  that  chs.  ii.,  iii.  is  thus  adjusted  to 
ch.  i.,  it  is  no  less  clear  that  i.  1-ii.  3  anticipates  what  is 
to  follow,  and  purposely  prepares  the  way  for  it. 

1.  The  emphasis  with  which  it  is  repeated  at  the  close 
of  each  creative  act,  "  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good  "  (i. 
4,  10, 12,  etc.),  and  affirmed  at  the  end  of  the  whole,  "be- 
hold, it  was  very  good  "  (ver.  31),  would  be  unmeaning 
except  as  a  designed  preHminary  to  the  reverse  which 
was  shortly  to  follow  in  the  fall  (ch.  iii.).  And  this, 
moreover,  is  necessary  to  explain  the  otherwise  unac- 
countable declaration  (vi.  11  P),  that  "  the  earth  was  cor- 
rupt before  God,"  the  mystery  of  which  is  unrelieved  by 
anything  that  P  contains. 

2.  Ch.  ii.  3  is  evidently  preliminary  to  the  fourth  com- 
mandment (Ex.  XX.  8-11),  which  again  in  its  terms  dis- 
tinctly refers  back  to  i.  1-ii.  3.  The  ten  commandments 
in  Ex.  XX.  are  by  the  critics  referred  to  E,  with  which, 
according  to  Dillmanu,  J  was  acquainted.      He  must, 

'  Gescliichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  d.  A.  T. ,  p.  257. 
«  Biblische  Urgeschichte,  pp.  233,  234. 


36  GENERATIONS    OF  HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

therefore,  have  known  and  believed  that  the  world  was 
created  in  six  days,  and  can  have  written  nothing  in 
Gen.  ii.,  iii.,  inconsistent  with  this  belief.  This  can  only 
be  evaded  by  alleging  that  the  commandments  are  not 
preserved  in  Ex.  xx.  in  their  genuine  original  form.  Dill- 
mann  disputes  Ex.  xx.  11,  because  a  different  reason  is 
given  for  observing  the  Sabbath  in  Deut.  v.  15.  But  Ex. 
XX.  is  the  authentic  transcript,  while  Deut.  v.  is  a  repro- 
duction with  hortatory  modifications.  This  Dillmann 
admits  in  other  instances;  but  Delitzsch  very  projjerly 
contends  that  this  is  no  exception.  The  rejection  of  the 
verse  is  simply  the  usual  device  of  the  critics  for  dispos- 
ing of  whatever  contravenes  their  hyjDothesis.  Instead 
of  adapting  their  hypothesis  to  the  phenomena  presented 
by  the  text,  they  insist  upon  remodelling  the  text  into 
accordance  with  their  hypothesis.  The  advantage  of 
this  method  is  that  the  critic  can  thus  triumphantly  es- 
tablish whatever  he  sets  out  to  prove. 

CAIN  AND   ABEL — CAIN's   DESCENDANTS   (CH.    IV.). 

It  is  said  that  vs.  17-24  is  at  variance  with  the  rest  of 
the  chapter,  and  with  the  J  document  generally  in  re- 
spect both  to  the  life  of  Cain  and  the  fact  of  the  deluge. 
It  is  hence  claimed  that  extracts  from  separate  documents 
have  here  been  combined. 

While  Cain  is  represented  in  vs.  11,  14,  as  condemned 
for  the  murder  of  his  brother  to  be  a  fugitive  and  a  wan- 
derer in  the  earth,  it  is  affirmed  that,  according  to  ver.  17, 
he  led  a  settled  life  and  built  a  city.  But  (1)  it  then  re- 
mains to  be  accounted  for,  if  these  stories  are  in  such 
direct  antagonism,  that  K  could  have  put  them  to- 
gether without  explanation  or  remark,  as  though  he  per- 
ceived no  conflict  between  them  and  had  no  idea  that  his 
readers  would  suspect  any.     (2)  The  fact  is  that  Cain  was 


CAIN   AND   ABEL    (CH.  IV.)  87 

expelled  from  the  seat  of  God's  presence,  the  society  of 
man,  and  cultivated  land,  to  the  wild  steppes  of  the  land 
of  Nod  (so  called  from  lp  ^vanderer,  in  his  sentence), 
equivalent  to  the  nomad  region.  The  Hebrew  word  for 
city  is  in  usage  broad  enough  to  cover  a  nomadic  encamp-^ 
ment  (Num.  xiii.  19 ;  2  Kin.  xvii.  9).  The  dread  lest  his 
murder  might  be  avenged  (ver.  14),  betrayed  itself  afresh 
in  his  constructing  such  a  defence  for  himself  and  his 
family,  which  subsequently  may  have  grown  from  these 
small  beginnings  ^  into  much  larger  proportions.  The 
builders  of  the  first  huts  on  the  site  of  Chicago  may  be 
said  to  have  laid  the  foundations  of  the  city.  (3)  Cain 
had  previously  been  a  "  tiller  of  the  ground."  That  he 
continued  to  be  an  agriculturist  is  certainly  not  stated  in 
the  text  and  is  in  fact  inconsistent  with  it.  The  arts  de- 
veloped by  his  descendants  are  those  of  nomads,  viz., 
pasturage,  music,  and  metallurgy,  but  not  the  cultivation 
of  the  soil.  Jabal  was  "  the  father  of  such  as  dwell  in 
tents  and  have  cattle,"  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that 
in  which  Abel  was  a  "  keeper  of  sheep  "  at  his  paternal 
home.  (4)  The  explicit  reference  in  iv.  24,  where  Lamech 
speaks  of  Cain  being  avenged  sevenfold,  to  the  pledge 
which  the  Lord  had  given  him  in  ver.  15,  shows  very 
plainly  that  both  belong  to  the  same  continuous  narra- 
tive. Dillmann  can  find  no  escape  from  this  but  either 
by  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse  and  supposing  the 
allusion  to  be  the  other  way,  and  that  ver.  15  was  shaped 
into  conformity  with  ver.  24,  or  else  by  ejecting  ver.  15a 
from  the  text  as  an  addition  by  R.  Budde  ("Biblische 
Urgeschichte,"  pp.  184,  185)  strangely  imagines  that  the 
language  of  Lamech  gave  rise  to  the  story  of  Cain's 
murder. 

'  Observe  the  form  of  statement  in  the  Hebrew,  which  is  significant, 
•i?^  ''v''?^  "  he  was  building-  a  cit_y,"  as  a  work  in  progress,  not  "he 
built  it,"  as  though  it  were  completed  by  him. 


38  GENERATIONS   OF  HEAVEN   AND   EARTH 

A  still  more  surprising  inference  from  vs.  17-24  is  that 
tlie  writer  knew  nothing  of  the  interruption  of  human 
history  by  the  deluge.  This  inference  hangs  by  a  very 
slender  thread.  As  the  invention  of  various  arts  is  here 
traced  to  the  sons  of  Lamech  in  the  line  of  Cain,  the 
conclusion  is  drawn  that  as  the  arts  have  been  perpetu- 
ated, so  must  the  race  have  been  that  invented  them  ; 
which  is  an  evident  non  sequitur.  As  though  an  art  in- 
vented by  one  race  of  men  could  not  be  adopted  by  an^ 
other  race,  and  the  knowledge  of  it  be  kept  alive  though 
the  original  inventors  had  passed  away.  That  the  race 
of  Cain  was  extinct  seems  to  be  implied  by  the  fact  that 
the  genealogy  breaks  off  as  it  does,  without  being  con- 
tinued, like  every  other  genealogy  in  Genesis,  to  tribes  or 
persons  existing  in  the  writer's  own  day,  Wellhausen  in- 
trepidly suggests  that  Cain  is  a  collective  name  for  the 
Kenites,  as  in  Num.  xxiv.  22,  who  are  thus  traced  up  to 
the  origin  of  mankind  ;  a  piece  of  historical  criticism  akin 
to  that  which  finds  an  allusion  to  South  America  in  "  the 
gold  of  Parvaim  "  (2  Chron.  iii,  6),  since  Parvaim  is  the 
dual  of  Peru, 

Wellhausen  maintains  that  this  section,  in  which  the 
arts  of  building  cities,  care  of  cattle,  music,  and  metal- 
lurgy are  traced  to  the  godless  descendants  of  Cain  is  a 
sequel  to  the  narrative  of  the  fall  in  chs,  ii.,  iii,,  in  which 
the  tree  of  knowledge  bears  forbidden  fruit.  The  com- 
mon idea  in  both,  he  claims,  is  that  knowledge  is  peril- 
ous, and  Jehovah  jealously  restrains  man  from  its  posses- 
sion ;  advancing  civilization  betokens  growing  corruption. 
These  two  sections,  pervaded  by  this  idea,  he  sunders 
from  the  J  of  the  rest  of  Genesis,  and  supposes  that  they 
belong  to  some  antecedent  document,  J',  which  J  has  here 
incorporated  in  his  own  production.  Dillmann  agi'ees 
with  him  that  the  first  half  of  ch.  iv.,  containing  the 
story  of  Cain  and  Abel,  is  by  a  different  writer  from  the 


CAIN   AND   ABEL   (CH.  IV.)  39 

second  half  of  the  chapter,  containing  the  account  of 
Cain's  descendants  ;  but  insists  that  it  is  the  former  and 
not  the  latter  which  is  by  the  author  of  the  narrative  of 
the  fall  and  is  its  continuation.  And  he  points  in  evi- 
dence of  this  to  ver.  7b,  which  is  repeated  from  iii,  16b  ; 
the  mention  of  Eden  (ver.  16) ;  the  identity  of  aim,  viz.,  to 
trace  the  growth  of  sin,  the  beginning  of  which  is  de- 
scribed in  ch.  iii.,  and  the  sameness  of  the  diction  as 
shown  in  a  number  of  words  and  expressions  common 
to  vs.  1-16  and  chs.  ii.,  iii.,  as  well  as  other  passages  re- 
ferred to  J.  On  the  other  hand,  Budde  ("Biblische 
Urgeschichte,"  pp.  220,  221)  points  out  coincidences 
in  expression  between  vs.  17-24  and  various  J  passages. 
Whereupon  Dillmann  concludes  that  if  any  significance 
is  to  be  attached  to  these  coincidences,  the  author  of  chs. 
ii.,  iii.  may  himself  have  introduced  vs.  17-24  from  its 
original  source  into  his  own  document,  regardless  of  the 
discrepancy  in  ver.  17,  not  so  much  with  a  view  to  the 
invention  of  arts  as  the  development  of  crime  as  shown 
in  Lamech's  impious  speech.  As  it  has  already  been 
shown  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  ver.  17  and 
the  preceding  verses,  the  entire  critical  structure  based  on 
that  assumption  collapses.  Dillmann  is  right  in  link- 
ing chs.  ii.,  iii.  with  iv.  1-16,  and  Wellhausen  in  linking 
those  chapters  with  vs.  17-24.  And  there  is  but  one 
author  for  the  whole. 

MARKS   OF  J. 

Dillmann  finds  the  following  points  in  common  between 
chs.  ii.,  iii.,  and  the  diction  of  vs.  1-16. 

1-  y^^t'^  ground  (vs.  2,  3,  10,  12).  See  ch.  xxviii.  10- 
22,  Marks  of  J,  No.  4. 

2.  rrin;  field  (ver.  8).  See  chs.  ii.,  iii.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  2. 
This  word  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  J.     It  occurs  re- 


40     GENERATIONS  OF  HEAVEN  AND  EAKTH 

peatedly  also  in  P,  e.g.,  xxiii.  9,  11,  13,  17,  19,  20,  and 
often  elsewhere. 

3.  iraisn  ids'  till  the  ground  (vs.  2,  12,  as  ii.  5  ;  iii.  23). 
As  the  phrase  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch,  its 
absence  from  P  sections  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same 
manner  as  its  absence  from  all  the  rest  of  those  that  are 
assigned  to  J.  No  argument  for  a  diversity  of  documents 
can  be  derived  from  it. 

4.  irna  drive  out  (ver.  14,  as  iii.  24).  See  ch.  xxi.  1-21, 
Marks  of  E,  No.  5. 

5.  ^Tblb  not  to  (ver.  15,  as  iii.  11).  See  chs.  xviii.,xix., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  14. 

6.  nr\i5  n^lij!  thou  art  cursed  (ver.  11,  as  iii.  14).  This 
verb  is  always  referred  either  to  J,  E,  or  D,  there  being 
no  occasion  for  its  employment  in  any  of  the  passages  as- 
cribed to  P. 

7.  The  questions  asked  by  the  Lord  (vs.  9,  10)  are 
similar  to  those  in  iii.  9,  13.  These  various  points  of 
similarity  between  vs.  1-16  and  chs.  ii.,  iii.  create  a  strong 
presumption  that  they  are  from  the  same  writer,  as  Dill- 
mann  urges,  but  afford  no  proof  that  he  is  distinct  from 
the  author  of  the  passages  referred  to  P. 

He  also  finds  the  following  expressions  in  vs.  1-16, 
which  recur  in  J  passages  elsewhere  : 

8.  q^cin  in  the  adverbial  sense  again  (vs.  2, 12).  This 
is  uniformly  referred  to  J  or  E,  except  in  Lev.  xxvi.  18. 

9.  ib  mn  he  angry  (vs.  5,  6).  See  chs.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  30. 

10.  ns  nSD  open  the  mouth  (ver.  11).  This  occurs  but 
twice  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  (Num.  xvi.  30,  J  ;  Deut. 
xi.  6  D). 

Budde  finds  the  following  indications  of  J  in  vs.  17- 
24. 

11.  nb^  heget  (ver.  18).  See  chs.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No. 
20  ;  also  under  ch.  x. 


CAIlSr   AND   ABEL   (CH.  IV.)  41 

12.  sin  Da  (ver.  22),  she  also.  See  ch.  xxii.  20-24, 
Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

13.  I'^rii?  D©1  (ver.  21)  and  his  brother  s  name,  as  x.  25. 
These  are  the  only  two  instances  in  the  Hexateuch  in 
which  a  second  sou  is  introduced  by  this  particular  for- 
mula. 

The  divine  names  are  appropriately  used.  It  is  to  Je- 
hovah, who  had  given  her  the  promise  of  offspring,  that 
Eve  gratefully  ascribes  the  bestowment  of  her  first  child 
(ver.  1).  To  Jehovah  offerings  are  brought  by  Cain  and 
Abel  (vs.  3,  4).  It  is  Jehovah,  Avho  condescendingly  re- 
monstrates with  Cain  and  explains  to  him  the  defect  in 
his  offering  and  how  it  may  be  remedied  (vs.  6,  7).  It  is 
Jehovah  again,  the  defender  of  his  own  people,  who  ar- 
raigns Cain  for  his  awful  crime,  and  while  sparing  his 
guilty  life  banishes  him  from  his  presence  (vs.  9-16).  It 
is  Jehovah  upon  whose  name  the  pious  race  of  Seth  and 
Enosh  devoutly  call,  iv.  26. 

It  might  at  first  sight  appear  surprising  that  Eve,  who 
liad  recognized  the  grace  of  Jehovah  in  the  birth  of  Cain, 
should  speak  of  Seth  as  coming  to  her  from  Elohim  (ver. 
25).  But  there  is  a  reason  for  this.  The  good  gift  of 
God  is  set  in  contrast  with  the  evil  deed  of  man.  "  Elo- 
him hath  appointed  me  another  seed  instead  of  Abel ; 
for  Cain  slew  him."  It  is  to  be  observed  that  Elohim 
here  occurs  in  a  J  section  ;  so  that  the  critics  themselves 
must  admit  that  it  is  discriminatingly  used,  and  that  there 
is  a  special  propriety  in  its  employment. 


n 

THE  GENEEATIONS  OF  ADAM   (CH.  V.  1-VI.  8) 
ADAM   TO   NOAH    (CH.  V.) 

Those  who  insist  upon  regarding  the  entire  antedilu- 
vian history  of  the  Bible  as  mythical,  and  on  a  par  with 
the  early  myths  of  heathen  nations,  labor,  though  with 
small  success,  to  find  ancient  parallels  to  the  genealogy 
contained  in  this  chapter.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  is 
the  ten  antediluvian  kings  of  Chaldean  story  Avith  reigns  on 
an  average  of  43,000  years  each,  as  reported  by  Berosus. 
Whether  Lenormant  is  correct  or  not  in  giving  them  an  as- 
tronomical interpretation,  their  names  plainly  stand  in 
no  relation  to  the  names  in  this  Scriptural  list.  The 
sole  point  of  resemblance  is  in  the  number  ten ;  and  this 
is  vague  enough.  Others  have  sought  to  find  meanings 
in  the  names  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  which  might 
suggest  the  idea  which  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  genealogy 
and  account  for  its  formation.  They  are  interpreted  by 
Boettcher '  as  indicative  of  the  successive  stages  by  which 
the  human  race  advanced  in  civilization  ;  by  Ewald  ^  as 
in  part  at  least  the  names  of  various  deities  ;  and  by 
Knobel  as  representing  the  Western  Asiatics,  while  the 
descendants  of  Cain  denote  the  Chinese  and  other  popu- 
lations of  Eastern  Asia.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  in 
the  intent  of  the  sacred  historian  it  simply  traces  the  line 
of  descent  from  Adam  to  Noah  in  the  pious  line  of  Seth. 

*  Exegetiscli-kritische  Aehrenlese,  pp.  4,  5. 
'  Gescliichte  Israels,  2d  edit.,  i.,  p.  357. 


ADAM   TO   NOAH    (CH.  V.)  43 

Budde's  ^  inference  from  tlie  names  Jared  (descent)  and 
Methuselali  (man  of  weapon)  that  while  the  first  five  in 
the  line  were  good  men,  the  last  five,  with  the  exception 
of  Enoch  and  Noah,  were  wicked,  rests  on  purely  fanci- 
ful interpretations  of  the  names. 

The  longevity  attributed  to  the  antediluvians  has  been 
declared  to  be  inconsistent  with  physiological  laws  ;  but 
in  our  ignorance  of  the  extent  to  which  the  conditions 
affecting  human  life  may  have  been  modified,  such  an  as- 
sertion is  unwan-anted. 


THE   CAINITE   AND   SETHITE   GENEALOGIES. 

There  is  a  remarkable  similarity  in  the  names  of  the 
descendants  of  Seth  in  ch.  v.  and  those  of  Cain,  iv.  17, 
18,  as  shown  in  the  following  lists  : 


Adam 

Adam 

Seth 

Enosh 

Kenan 

Cain 

Malialalel 

Enoch 

Jared 

Irad 

Enoch 

Mehujael 

Methuselah 

Methushael 

Lamech 

Lamech 

Noah 

The  six  names  in  each  column,  beginning  with  Kenan 
or  Cain,  are  strikingly  alike ;  and  if  Mahalalel  be  trans- 
posed with  Enoch,  they  will  follow  each  other  in  the 
same  identical  order.  It  is  natural  to  conclude  that  this 
cannot  be  altogether  casual.  Buttmann  ^  inferred  that 
these  are  variants  of  one  and  the  same  genealogy  as  pre- 
served in  two  related  but  hostile  tribes.  In  its  original 
intent  it  enumerated  the  early  ancestors  of  the  human 

'  Biblische  Urgeschichte,  p.  96.  *  Mjthologus,  i.,  pp.  170-172. 


44  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

race  sprung  from  its  first  progenitor,  who  in  one  form  of 
the  myth  was  called  Adam  and  in  the  other  Enosh,  each 
having  the  same  signification  (man).  The  two  were  sub- 
sequently harmonized  by  making  Enosh  the  grandson  of 
Adam.  The  names  diifered  sufficiently  for  the  race  of 
Seth  to  regard  the  Cainite  tradition  as  distinct  from 
their  own  and  descriptive  of  a  godless  race,  and  so  Cain 
was  held  to  be  the  ancestor  not  of  all  mankind,  but  of 
this  hated  tribe. 

The  majority  of  critics  accept  this  identification  of  the 
two  genealogies,  and  have  drawn  other  consequences 
from  it.  Dillmann  contended  that  the  redactor  has  trans- 
posed the  story  of  Cain  and  Abel  (iv.  1-16)  from  its  true 
position  later  in  the  history.  Cain  was  not  the  son  of 
Adam,  but  belongs  where  Kenan  stands  in  the  geneal- 
ogy (v,  9),  with  whom  he  is  identical ;  or,  as  he  has  mod- 
ified his  opinion  in  the  latest  edition  of  his  "  Commen- 
tary," Cain  and  Abel  were  not  the  only  sons  of  Adam,  but 
Avere  born  subsequent  to  Seth.  He  thinks  it  strange 
that  the  distinction  between  tillers  of  the  ground  and 
keepers  of  sheep,  and  between  bloody  and  unbloody  offer- 
ings, should  be  found  in  the  first  children  of  primeval 
man  ;  and  that  the  advance  from  the  first  sin  to  fratri- 
cide should  be  made  so  soon.  This  only  shows  that  his 
opinion  differs  from  that  of  the  author  of  the  narrative. 
He  appeals  also  to  the  words  of  Cain  (iv.  14),  "  Every 
one  that  findeth  me  shall  slay  me,"  which  imply  a  consid- 
erable pojjulation ;  but  he  forgets  how  greatly  the  de- 
scendants of  Adam  may  have  multiplied  by  the  time  that 
he  attained  his  one  hundred  and  thirtieth  year  (v.  3,  cf. 
iv.  25).  Wellhausen  goes  so  far  as  to  identify  Abel  with 
Jabal  (iv.  20),  "  the  father  of  such  as  have  cattle."  But — 

1.  That  Wellhausen's  wild  conjecture  expressly  contra- 
dicts the  statements  of  the  history  is  obvious.  And  it 
requires  not  a  little  critical  manipulation  to  cany  through 


ADAM  TO   NOAH   (CH.  V.)  45 

the  hypothesis  of  Dillmann.  In  iv.  25  the  word  "  agaiu," 
in  the  first  clause,  and  the  whole  of  the  last  clause  after 
the  word  ynT  seed,  viz.,  "  another  instead  of  Abel,  for  Cain 
slew  him,"  must  be  thrown  out  of  the  text  as  an  interpo- 
lation by  K.  The  statement  (iv.  1)  that  Cain  was  the  son 
of  Adam  and  Eve  must  be  gotten  out  of  the  way,  if  he  is 
to  be  made  the  same  as  Kenan  the  son  of  Enosh  (v.  9). 
And  E  must  have  reversed  the  order  of  the  statements 
in  the  chapter  for  no  very  intelligible  reason. 

2,  The  distinctness  of  these  genealogies  is  expressly 
affirmed.  That  in  iv.  17,  18,  J,  professes  to  record  the 
descendants  of  Cain  after  his  murder  of  Abel  and  his  re- 
moval to  the  land  of  Nod,  while  that  in  ch.  v.,  P,  records 
the  descendants  of  Seth,  a  different  son  of  Adam.  The 
critics  cannot  consistently  claim  that  this  is  merely  a 
variant  representation  by  J  and  P  of  what  is  in  fact  the 
same  thing,  but  which  E  has  erroneously  set  do■v^^l  as 
two  quite  separate  lines  of  descent.  For  by  their  own 
hypothesis  J  (iv.  25,  26)  traces  the  line  "  Adam,  Seth, 
Enosh  "  precisely  as  is  done  by  P  (v.  3-6) ;  and  v.  29  is 
attributed  to  J  as  another  fragment  of  the  same  line. 
From  this  the  critics  infer  that  the  document  J  must  have 
contained  a  complete  genealogy  from  Adam  to  Noah  par- 
allel to  that  of  P,  though  the  greater  portion  of  it  has 
been  omitted  by  E  as  superfluous  repetition.  Noav  these 
broken  and  scattered  links  of  J  utter  the  same  voice  with 
the  full  record  of  P,  that  Noah  and  his  father  Lamech 
were  descended  not  from  Cain  but  from  Seth.  Both 
these  genealogies  in  substantially  their  present  form 
were,  therefore,  according  to  the  critics  contained  in  the 
document  of  J,  who  in  this  followed  the  sources  whence 
he  derived  his  history.  This  is  a  confession  that  the 
same  wi-iter  can  have  recorded  them  both  ;  consequently 
their  presence  in  the  existing  text  of  Genesis  affords  no 
argument  for  critical  partition.     The  unity  of  Genesis  is 


46  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

not  affected  by  the  alleged  conversion  of  one  genealogy 
into  two,  which  on  the  critics'  own  theory  must  have  oc- 
curred, if  at  all,  in  the  course  of  its  oral  transmission 
prior  to  the  wa-iting  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  or  even  of 
the  document  J,  which  is  held  to  be  one  of  its  oldest 
constituents. 

And  in  regard  to  this  it  would  appear  that  a  sweeping 
conclusion  is  drawn  from  very  slender  premises.  Sup- 
pose that  we  are  unable  to  account  for  the  coincidence 
of  names,  does  it  follow  that  the  persons  represented  by 
them  never  existed  ?  Delitzsch  directs  attention  to  the 
fact  that  but  two  names  are  the  same  in  the  entire  series, 
viz.,  Enoch  and  Lamech  :  and  in  both  cases  statements 
are  made  which  show  that  the  persons  are  quite  dis- 
tinct. The  first  of  these  names  means  initiation  or  con- 
secration, and  might  very  well  be  applied  in  the  former 
sense  to  the  first  son  of  Cain  born  in  exile,  as  subse- 
quently to  the  first-born  of  Reuben  (Gen.  xlvi.  9),  and  in 
the  latter  sense  to  that  holy  man  who  walked  with  God 
and  was  not,  for  God  took  him.  The  meaning  of  the 
name  Lamech  is  unknown  ;  but  the  identification  of  the 
persons  so  called  is  forbidden  by  the  speeches  preserved 
from  them,  which  reflect  totally  diverse  characters.  Cain 
and  Kenan,  Irad  and  Jared  are  distinct  not  merely  in 
their  form  but  in  their  radical  letters  and  probable  sig- 
nification. So  is  the  second  and  determining  member  in 
the  compound  names  Methushael  and  Methuselah.  Ma- 
halalel,  jpraise  of  God,  which  stands  over  against  Mehu- 
jael,  smitten  of  God,  may  suggest  that  the  descendants  of 
Cain  have  names  with  a  bad  meaning  and  those  of  Seth 
have  names  with  a  good  meaning. 

The  meaning  of  most  of  these  ancient  names  cannot 
now  be  ascertained.  Several  of  them  do  not  appear  to 
be  Hebrew.  And  it  is  doubtful  whether  even  those 
which  simulate  Hebrew  forms  may  not  be  merely  modi- 


ADAM   TO   NOAH   (CH.  V.)  47 

fications  of  some  unknown  original  to  adapt  them  better 
to  the  Hebrew  ear.  It  is  not  surprising  if  these  parallel 
lists  of  unintelligible  names  should  undergo  changes  in 
their  transmission  through  long  centuries,  and  if  they 
should,  whether  vnth  or  without  design,  be  gradually  con- 
formed to  one  another.  The  disposition  to  produce  like- 
sounding  contrasts,  as  in  Isa  v.  7  'DE'12J'5C  .  .  .  nsTC'a 
nip'ia  .  .  .  Hpys,  or  by  slight  modifications  as  of  Beel- 
zebub into  Beelzebul,  or  Shechem  into  Sychar,  to  give  a 
different  turn  to  the  meaning  of  words,  may  easily  have 
been  operative.  The  LXX.  has  two  more  names  alike  in 
both  lists  than  the  Hebrew,  which  indicates  a  tendency 
in  such  cases  to  come  into  a  closer  approximation  in  the 
course  of  repeated  transcription.  The  Mohammedan 
names  for  Cain  and  Abel  are  Kabil  and  Habil ;  see  Sale's 
Koran,  note  to  ch.  v.  30. 

DUPLICATE   STATEMENTS. 

Dillmann  thinks  that  the  composite  character  of  the 
book  of  Genesis  is  shown  more  plainly  in  the  duplicate 
mention  of  the  birth  of  Seth  and  Enosh  (iv.  25, 26  ;  v.  3- 
6)  than  anywhere  else.  Why  should  the  same  writer 
thus  repeat  himself  ?  The  supplementary  critics,  as  Tuch, 
held  that  J  inserted  iv.  25,  26,  in  order  to  effect  the  tran- 
sition from  the  preceding  account  of  Cain  and  his  de- 
scendants to  that  of  the  line  of  Seth.  The  more  recent 
critics  follow  Hupfeld,  who  regarded  these  verses,  as  to- 
gether with  V.  29,  the  remnants  of  J's  genealogy  from 
Adam  to  Noah  parallel  to  that  of  P  in  ch.  v.  R,  while 
omitting  the  greater  portion  as  superfluous  repetition,  saw 
fit  to  retain  these  three  verses  because  of  the  additional 
information  which  they  convey.  He  inserted  v.  29  in 
the  body  of  P's  genealogy,  but  preserved  iv.  25,  26  dis- 
tinct.   Now  it  is  difiicult  to  see  why  the  same  motive,  be 


48  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

it  what  it  might,  which  could  determine  R  not  to  blend 
iv.  25,  26  with  the  corresponding  verses  of  ch.  v.  as  is 
done  with  v.  29,  might  not  be  similarly  influential  with 
the  original  writer.  Some  reasons  for  such  a  separate 
statement  naturally  offer  themselves. 

1.  These  closing  verses  of  ch.  iv.  are  necessarj^  to  the 
proper  understanding  of  ch.  v.  While  the  insertion  of 
those  statements  in  this  chapter  would  have  been  confus- 
ing and  would  have  marred  its  symmetry,  it  was  impor- 
tant to  set  V.  3  in  its  true  light  in  relation  to  iv.  1,  2. 
The  critics  say  that  they  are  contradictory,  since  they 
infer  from  v.  3  that  according  to  P  Seth  was  the  first 
child  of  Adam.  But  this  is  not  necessarily  implied  any 
more  than  Ex.  ii.  1,  2  implies  that  Moses  was  the  oldest 
child  of  his  parents,  though  ver.  4  declares  the  contrary, 
not  to  speak  of  Ex.  vii.  7.  To  make  the  matter  perfectly 
plain  to  the  reader,  iv.  25  distinctly  states  that  Seth  was 
born  after  the  murder  of  Abel.  And  then  iv.  26  was 
added  to  indicate  the  character  of  the  godly  race  of  Seth 
in  contrast  with  the  ungodly  race  of  Cain,  and  thus  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  sparing  of  Noah  and  his  house 
when  the  rest  of  mankind  perished  in  the  flood. 

2.  Another  reason  for  putting  these  statements  at  the 
close  of  ch.  iv.  grows  out  of  the  original  plan  of  the  book 
of  Genesis  and  its  division  into  successive  sections  each 
in  a  manner  complete  in  itself  and  introduced  by  its  owti 
special  title.  The  section  ii.  4-ch.  iv.  had  recorded  a 
constant  descent  from  bad  to  worse,  the  sin  of  our  first 
parents,  their  expulsion  from  paradise,  the  murder  of 
Abel,  Cain's  descendants  reaching  in  Lamech  the  climax 
of  boastful  and  unrestrained  violence.  That  the  section 
might  not  be  suffered  to  end  in  unrelieved  gloom  a 
brighter  outlook  is  added  at  the  close,  precisely  as  is 
done  at  the  end  of  the  next  section  in  vi.  8.  Seth  is 
substituted  for  Abel,  whom   Cain   slew,  and   instead   of 


ADAM   TO   NOAH    (CH.  V.)  49 

piety  perishing  with  murdered  Abel  it  reaches  a  new  de- 
velopment in  the  days  of  Euosh. 

The  whole  arrangement  bears  evidence  of  adaptation 
and  careful  thought,  and  is  suggestive  of  one  author,  not 
the  combination  of  separate  compositions  prepared  with 
no  reference  to  each  other. 

A  further  indication  of  the  same  sort,  implying  the 
original  unity  of  these  chapters,  is  their  correspondence 
with  the  general  plan  of  Genesis  in  respect  to  genealo- 
gies. Uniformly  the  divergent  lines  are  first  traced  be- 
fore proceeding  with  the  principal  line  of  descent  leading 
to  the  chosen  people.  In  ch.  x.  the  various  nations  of 
mankind  sprung  from  the  three  sons  of  Noah ;  then  (xi. 
10  sqq.)  the  line  from  Shem  to  Abram.  Nahor's  descend- 
ants (xxii.  20  sqq.),  those  of  Keturah  (xxv.  1  sqq.),  and  of 
Ishmael  (vs.  13  sqq.),  before  those  of  Isaac  (vs.  19  sqq.). 
Those  of  Esau  (xxxvi.  1  sqq.)  before  those  of  Jacob 
(xxxvii.  2  sqq.).  In  like  manner  the  degenerate  and 
God-forsaken  race  of  Cain  is  traced  (iv.  17  sqq.)  before 
proceeding  with  that  of  Seth  (ch.  v.). 

PRIMEVAL   CHEONOLOGY. 

It  should  be  remarked  here  that  no  computation  of 
time  is  ever  built  in  the  Bible  upon  this  or  any  other 
genealogy.  There  is  no  summation  of  the  years  from 
Adam  to  Noah,  or  from  Noah  to  Abraham,  as  there  is  of 
the  abode  in  Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  40),  or  of  the  period  from 
the  exodus  to  the  building  of  the  temple  (1  Kin.  vi.  1). 
And  as  the  received  chronologies  and  the  generally  ac- 
cepted date  of  the  flood  and  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
are  derived  from  computations  based  on  these  genealo- 
gies, it  ought  to  be  remembered  that  this  is  a  very  pre- 
carious mode  of  reckoning.  This  genealogy  could  only 
afford  a  safe  estimate  of  time  on  the  assumption  that  no 
4 


50  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

links  are  missing  and  tliat  every  name  in  the  line  of  descent 
has  been  recorded.  But  this  we  have  no  right  to  take 
for  granted.  The  analogy  of  other  biblical  genealogies 
is  decidedly  against  it.  Very  commonly  unimportant 
names  are  omitted  ;  sometimes  several  consecutive  names 
are  dropped  together.  No  one  has  a  right,  therefore,  to 
denominate  a  primeval  chronology  so  constructed  the 
biblical  chronology  and  set  it  in  opposition  to  the  de- 
ductions of  science,  and  thence  conclude  that  there  is  a 
conflict  between  the  Bible  and  science.  See  the  article 
on  this  subject  in  the  Bibliotlieca  Sacra  for  April,  1890. 

MAEKS   OP  P. 

Dillmann  finds  the  following  indications  of  P  in  this 
chapter. 

1.  The  back  reference  from  vs.  1-3  to  i,  26-28.  But 
it  is  linked  to  the  same  extent  and  in  precisely  the  same 
manner  with  J  sections.  The  genealogy  is  traced  (ver. 
32)  to  Noah  and  his  three  sons,  all  of  whom  are  similarly 
named  in  ix.  18  J ;  ver.  29  refers  back  to  iii.  17  J.  The 
critics  say  that  ver.  29  is  an  insertion  by  E.  They  say 
so  because  their  hypothesis  requires  it  and  for  no  other 
reason.  It  might  just  as  well  be  said  that  R  inserted 
vs.  1,  2,  and  modified  ver.  3.  Both  passages  stand  on 
the  same  footing,  and  should  be  dealt  with  in  the  same 
way. 

2.  The  formality  and  precision  of  statement.  This  is 
the  uniform  style  of  the  genealogies  leading  to  the  chosen 
race  as  distinguished  from  those  belonging  to  the  diver- 
gent lines,  whether  attributed  to  P  or  J. 

3.  ti'ibin  generations  (ver.  1).  See  chs.  vi.-ix.,  Marks 
of  P,  No.  1. 

4.  ty^*cr\  likeness  (vs.  1,  3).     See  ch.  i.  1-ii.  3. 

5.  nba  irnage   (ver.   3).     This   word   occurs  here   and 


SONS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN  (CIl.  VI.  1-8)      51 

ix.  6,  with  specific  allusion  to  i.  26,  27 ;  and  besides  in 
the  Hexateuch  only  Num.  xxxiii.  52  J. 

6.  il^p^i'^  nST  male  and  female  (ver.  2).  See  chs.  vi.-ix., 
Marksof  P,  No.  12. 

7.  "l^bin  beget  (vs.  3  sqq.).  See  chs.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  20.' 

8.  DTl'bxn-ns?  ^^nnn  loalk  ivith  God  (vs.  22,  24). 
This  phrase  occurs  besides  vi.  9  P,  and  nowhere  else  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  is  lualk 
before  God  (xvii.  1  P ;  xxiv.  40  J  ;  xlviii.  15  E). 

The  assertion  that  according  to  this  writer  "  this  first 
age  of  the  world  was  still  a  time  of  rest  and  primitive 
perfection,  into  which  corruption  did  not  penetrate  till 
toward  its  close "  (vi.  9  sqq.),  is  gratuitous  and  un- 
founded. It  has  no  basis  whatever  in  the  sacred  text. 
The  universal  corruption  described  in  vi.  11,  12,  finds  its 
only  explanation  in  the  fall  of  man  (ch,  iii.),  and  the  sub- 
sequent development  and  spread  of  evil  (ch.  iv.;  vi.  1-8), 
and  proves  conclusively  that  these  passages  cannot  be 
separated  and  assigned  to  distinct  sources. 

The  names  of  God  are  appropriately  used  in  this  chap- 
ter. Elohim  is  rendered  necessary  in  ver.  1  by  its  refer- 
ence to  i.  27,  and  Jehovah  in  v.  29  by  its  reference  to 
iii.  17.  Elohim  is  required  in  vs.  22,  24,  since  walking 
with  God  is  a  general  designation  of  piety  as  contrasted 
with  what  is  earthly  and  sensual. 

THE    SONS   OF   GOD    AND    THE    DAUGHTERS    OF    MEN   (CH.   VI. 

1-8) 

In  regard  to  the  paragraph  Gen.  vi.  1-8,  the  most  re- 
cent critics  have  fallen  back  upon  the  position  taken  up 
by  fragmentists,  such  as  Vater,  who  affirmed  that  it  was 
not  only  disconnected  with  the  genealogy  in  ch.  v., 
which  precedes,  and  with  the  account  of  the  flood  which 


52  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

succeeds  it  (vi.  9  sqq,),  but  that  it  falls  apart  itself  into 
two  unrelated  paragraphs  (vs.  1-4)  concerning  the  pri- 
meval giants,  J',  and  (vs.  5-8)  the  divine  purpose  to 
destroy  the  world  and  save  Noah,  J. 

But  the  fact  is  that  there  is  the  most  intimate  connec- 
tion throughout,  and  this  passage  can  neither  itself  be 
split  into  fragments  nor  sundered  from  the  context  in 
which  it  stands.  The  genealogy  in  ch.  v.  conducts  the 
line  of  descent  by  regular  steps  from  Adam  to  Noah, 
pausing  here  because  there  was  something  to  record 
about  Noah  before  proceeding  fui'ther,  and  departing 
from  the  analogy  of  the  rest  of  the  chapter  by  naming 
three  sons  of  Noah  instead  of  one,  as  in  the  case  of  every 
preceding  patriarch,  because  they  were  all  concerned  in 
what  was  to  follow.  The  closing  verse  of  ch.  v.  is  thus 
directly  preparatory  for  the  account  of  the  deluge  which 
comes  after.  Further,  this  verse  contains  the  statement 
of  Noah's  age  at  the  birth  of  his  children,  but  the  length 
of  his  subsequent  life  and  the  duration  of  the  whole, 
which  had  been  regularly  given  in  the  case  of  jareceding 
patriarchs,  are  here  wanting.  These  are,  however,  sup- 
plied (vii.  6)  by  the  statement  of  Noah's  age  at  the  com- 
ing of  the  flood,  and  then,  after  the  account  of  the  deluge 
had  been  given  and  aU  that  was  to  be  said  further  about 
Noah,  there  follows  in  the  identical  forms  of  the  geneal- 
ogy (ch.  V.)  the  time  that  Noah  lived  after  the  flood  and 
the  total  of  his  years  (ix.  28,  29).  This  is  a  clear  indica- 
tion that  this  genealogy,  instead  of  being  broken  off  and 
terminated  at  the  close  of  ch.  v.,  is  simply  enlarged  by 
the  insertion  of  the  narrative  of  the  deluge,  which  is  in- 
corporated within  it.  After  this  the  divergent  lines  of 
descent  are  introduced  (ch.  x.),  and  then  the  main  gene- 
alogy is  resumed,  and  proceeds  (xi.  10-26)  until  it 
reaches  the  name  of  Abram,  when  it  pauses,  or  rather  is 
enlarged  again,  to  receive  the  history  of  the  patriarchs. 


SOl^S  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN  (CH.  VI.  1-8)      53 

Again,  vi.  1-8  is  formally  linked  to  what  precedes  in 
the  original  Hebrew  by  Vav  Consecutive,  and  by  the 
statement  of  men's  beginning  to  multiply  on  the  face  of 
the  earth,  which  sums  up  the  substance  of  cli.  v.  in  a 
few  words,  the  expansion  of  the  race  being  indicated  by 
the  statement  repeated  in  the  case  of  each  patriarch, 
"  He  begat  sons  and  daughters."  It  is  further  appropri- 
ate to  the  connection  as  preparing  the  way  for  what  fol- 
lows, by  explaining  the  universality  of  the  corruption 
which  was  the  moral  cause  of  the  flood.  This  is  the 
subject  of  vs.  1-4,  which  is  accordingly  intimately  re- 
lated to  vs.  5-8,  and  leads  directly  to  it,  making  that 
clear  which  would  otherwise  be  quite  unaccountable. 

The  sons  of  God  (vs.  2,  4)  are  not  angels  nor  demi- 
gods,' whose  intermarriage  with  the  daughters  of  men 
brought  forth  a  race  of  monsters  or  superhuman  beings. 

1.  This  pui-ely  mythological  conceit  was  foisted  upon 
the  passage  in  certain  apocryphal  books  like  the  book 
of  Enoch ;  also  by  Philo  and  Josephus,  who  were  misled 
by  the  analogy  of  ancient  heathen  fables.  But  it  was 
repelled  by  the  great  body  of  Jewish  and  Christian  in- 
terpreters from  the  earliest  periods,  though  it  has  been 
taken  up  again  by  a  number  of  modem  scholars.  It  is 
assumed  by  them  that  a  transgression  of  angels  is  here 
spoken  of,  though  the  existence  of  angels  has  not  been 
before  mentioned  nor  in  any  way  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
vious part  of  the  book  of  Genesis.  This  view  has  no 
sanction  whatever  in  Scripture.     Jude,  vs.  6,  7,  and  2 

'  The  Targums  and  some  other  Jewish  authorities  understand  by 
"  sons  of  God  '"  nobles,  men  of  high  rank  or  official  station,  who  in  Ps. 
Ixxxii.  6  are  denominated  "sons  of  the  Most  High"  ;  and  by  "  daugh- 
ters of  men  "  women  of  inferior  position,  as  in  Ps.  xlix.  2  ;  Ixii.  9, 
'D^^<  "^3^  are  contrasted  with  lZ3"i55  133  as  men  of  low  degree  with  men 
of  high  degree.  But  no  such  contrast  is  suggested  here  ;  and  the  in- 
termarriage of  different  classes  in  society  is  nowhere  represented  as  dis- 
pleasing to  God  or  provoking  the  divine  judgment. 


54  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   ADAM 

Pet.  ii.  4  have  been  tortured  into  sustaining  it ;  but  tliey 
contain  no  reference  to  this  passage  whatever.  And 
there  is  no  analogy  anywhere  in  the  Bible  for  the  adop- 
tion by  the  sacred  writers  of  mythological  notions  in 
general,  or  for  the  idea  in  particular  of  the  intermarriage 
of  angels  and  men.  Sexual  relations  are  nowhere  in 
Scripture  attributed  to  superior  beings.  There  is  no 
suggestion  that  angels  are  married  or  are  given  in  mar- 
riage ;  the  contrary  is  expressly  declared  (Matt.  xxii.  30 j. 
Male  and  female  deities  have  no  place  in  the  Bible,  ex- 
cept as  a  heathen  notion  which  is  uniformly  reprobated. 
The  Hebrew  language  does  not  even  possess  a  word  for 
"  goddess."  The  whole  conception  of  sexual  life,  as  con- 
nected with  God  or  angels,  is  absolutely  foreign  to  He- 
brew thought,  and  for  that  reason  cannot  be  supposed  to 
be  countenanced  here. 

2.  The  sole  foundation  for  this  mistaken  interpreta- 
tion is  the  allegation  that  "  sons  of  God  "  must,  accord- 
ing to  Scriptural  usage,  mean  "  angels  ; "  which,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  case.  Even  if  that  were  the  more  usual 
and  obvious  interpretation  of  the  phrase,  which  it  is  not, 
the  connection  in  which  it  stands  w^ould  compel  us  to 
seek  a  different  meaning  for  it  here,  if  that  were  possible, 
and  one  which  would  be  compatible  with  marriage. 
"  Sons  of  God  "  D'^n'byin  '^33  is  a  poetic  designation  of 
angels  occurring  three  times  in  the  book  of  Job  (i.  6  ;  ii. 
1 ;  xxxviii.  7)  ;  and  a  like  expression  wh^  "^SS  is  found 
t^vice  in  the  Psalms  in  the  same  sense  (xxix.  1 ;  Ixxxix. 
6).  Daniel  iii.  25,  ■j'Tibs  13  "  son  of  the  gods,"  has  also 
been  appealed  to ;  but  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
case,  as  it  is  the  language  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  repre- 
sents a  genuine  heathen  conception.  Angels  are  no- 
where so  called  in  the  Pentateuch,  nor  anywhere  in  the 
Bible  but  in  the  few  passages  already  refeiTed  to. 

3.  On  the  contrary,  "  sons  of  God  "  is  a  familiar  des- 


SONS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN  (CH.  VI.  1-8)      55 

ignation  of  the  chosen  race,  the  worshippers  of  the  true 
God.  Moses  is  instructed  to  say  to  Pharaoh  (Ex.  iv. 
22),  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  Israel  is  my  son :  let  my  son 
go.  So  Deut.  xiv.  1,  Ye  are  the  sons  of  Jehovah  your 
God.  In  the  Song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxii.)  this  idea  of 
sonship  occurs  repeatedly.  Ver.  5,  They  have  dealt 
corruptly  with  him,  they  are  not  his  sons.  Ver.  6,  Is 
Jehovah  not  thy  father  ?  Ver.  18,  He  is  called  the  Rock 
that  begat  thee,  the  God  that  gave  thee  birth  :  and  the 
people  are  called  (ver.  19)  his  sons  and  his  daughters. 
Hos.  i.  10,  Ye  are  the  sons  of  the  living  God ;  xi.  1,  Is- 
rael is  called  God's  son.  Isaiah  in  repeated  passages 
speaks  of  the  people  as  God's  sous  (Isa.  i.  2 ;  xliii.  6  ; 
xlv.  11).  In  Jer.  xxxi,  20  the  Lord  calls  Ephraim  his 
dear  son,  his  favorite  child.  In  Ps.  Ixxiii.  15  the  pious 
are  called  "  the  generation  of  God's  children."  And,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  worshippers  of  false  gods  are  called 
their  children.  Thus  (Num.  xxi.  29)  the  people  of  Moab 
are  spoken  of  as  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Chemosh. 
Mai.  ii.  11,  an  Israelite  who  had  taken  a  foreign  wife  is 
said  to  have  married  the  daughter  of  a  strange  god.  It 
is  in  entire  accord  with  this  Biblical  usage  that  the  pious 
race,  who  adhered  to  the  true  worship  of  God,  are  called 
the  sons  of  God  in  contrast  with  the  descendants  of 
Cain,  who  had  gone  out  from  the  presence  of  Jehovah, 
and  abandoned  the  seat  of  his  worship  entirely. 

4.  And  this  brings  the  verses  before  us  into  corre- 
spondence with  numerous  other  passages  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  its  practical  aim.  The  law  of  Moses  again  and 
again  forbids  intermarriage  with  the  Canaanites  lest  they 
should  contaminate  Israel  and  seduce  them  to  idolatry. 
The  book  of  Genesis  inculcates  the  same  lesson  when  it 
depicts  Abraham's  concern  about  the  marriage  of  Isaac 
(xxiv.  3,  4),  and  that  of  Isaac  and  Rebekah  about  the 
maiTiage  of  Jacob  (xxvii.  46  ;  xxviii.  1,  2),  the  distress 


56  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

which  Esau's  marriage  caused  his  parents  (xxvi.  34,  35  ; 
xxviii.  6-8),  and  the  trials  of  Jacob's  family  at  Shechem 
(ch.  xxxiv).  If  the  verses  before  us  point  out  the  ruin- 
ous consequences  of  the  intermarriage  of  the  godly  race 
with  the  ungodly,  it  furthers  an  aim  which  the  writer  of 
Genesis  and  of  the  Pentateuch  evidently  had  greatly  at 
heart.  A  warning  not  to  intermarry  with  angels  would 
be  altogether  unmeaning. 

5.  This  explanation  of  how  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
pious  portion  of  the  race  were  infected  with  the  uni- 
versal degeneracy  is  not  only  appropriate  in  the  connec- 
tion, but  is  necessary  to  account  for  the  universality  of 
the  following  judgment,  which  is  repeatedly  and  largely 
insisted  upon.  This  is  an  integral  and  essential  part  of 
the  narrative,  the  omission  of  which  would  leave  an  un- 
filled chasm.  The  primal  source  of  human  corruption 
had  been  germinally  shown  in  the  fall  (ch.  iii.) ;  the 
degeneracy  of  the  Cainites  had  been  traced  (ch.  iv.). 
Nothing  but  good,  however,  had  thus  far  been  said  of  the 
race  of  Seth  (iv.  26  ;  v.  22,  24,  29).  That  this  pious  race 
were  themselves  involved  in  the  degeneracy  which  had 
overtaken  the  rest  of  mankind,  is  here  stated  for  the  first 
time.  But  this  is  necessary  to  explain  why  the  whole 
race  of  man,  with  the  exception  of  a  single  family,  should 
be  doomed  to  destruction. 

6.  The  explanation  now  given  is  further  confirmed  by 
ver.  3,  where  sentence  is  passed  for  the  offence  described 
in  the  preceding  verse.  In  what  the  offence  consisted, 
if  the  sons  of  God  were  angels,  is  not  very  obvious.  It 
is  not  illicit  intercourse  which  is  described ;  the  terms 
used  denote  lawful  marriage.  But  if  it  was  wrong  for 
the  angels  to  marry  women,  the  angels  surely  were  the 
chief  offenders  ;  and  yet  no  penalty  is  denounced  upon 
angels.  The  divine  sentence  falls  exclusively  upon  men. 
There    is    such   an    obvious    incongruity   in    this   that 


SONS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN  (CH.  VI.  1-8)      57 

Budde  ^  insists  that  ver.  3  is  an  interpolation  and  does  not 
belong  in  this  connection,  but  has  been  transferred  from 
the  account  of  the  fall  of  our  first  parents.  The  incon- 
gruity that  is  alleged,  however,  does  not  show  the  verso 
to  be  an  interpolation,  but  simply  that  the  mythological 
sense  which  has  been  given  to  the  passage  is  false. 

7.  The  word  Nephilim,  occurring  ver.  4,  has  given  rise 
to  the  strange  deduction  that  this  passage  originally 
stood  in  no  connection  with  the  account  of  the  flood  ; 
that  the  author  of  it  in  fact  knew  of  no  such  event.  The 
only  foundation  for  this  inference  is  that  the  same  word 
is  found  again  in  Num.  xiii.  33,  in  the  evil  report  of  the 
spies  respecting  Canaan.  If  the  Nephilim  here  spoken 
of  were  still  in  existence  in  the  days  of  Moses,  how  could 
there  have  been  a  catastrophe  in  the  interval  which  swept 
away  all  mankind  except  the  family  of  Noah  ?  But  this 
rests  upon  the  unproved  assumption  that  the  Nephilim 
of  the  book  of  Numbers  were  lineal  descendants  of  those 
of  Genesis.  And  on  this  uncertain  basis  the  author  or 
compiler  of  Genesis  is  charged  with  the  absurdity  of  in- 
troducing a  passage  as  preliminary  to  the  deluge,  which 
by  its  very  terms  implies  that  no  deluge  had  taken  place. 
Could  he  have  so  grossly  mistaken  its  meaning  ?  Or  is 
it  not  possible  that  modern  critics  may  have  put  a  wrong 
interpretation  on  these  isolated  verses  ?  The  mere  fact 
that  the  same  terifi,  "  Nephilim,"  is  appHed  both  to  ante- 
diluvians and  to  Canaauites  is  a  very  slender  premise  on 
which  to  base  so  extraordinary  a  conclusion.  The  word 
is  obscure  in  its  meaning  and  its  derivation.  It  is  more 
probably  an  appellative  or  descriptive  term  than  a  gen- 
tile noun.  The  LXX.  translates  it  "giants;"  other  old 
Greek  versions  render  it  "  assailants  "  or  "  violent  men." 
It  does  not  occur  again  in  the  narrative  of  the  conquest 
of  Canaan,  as  though  it  were  the  proper  name  of  a  tribe, 

'  Biblische  Urgeschichte,  p.  30. 


58  THE   GENERATIONS    OF    ADAM 

but  only  in  the  report  of  the  spies,  whose  excited  imagi- 
nation could  best  express  the  terror  inspired  by  these 
men  of  great  stature  and  powerful  frame  by  saying  that 
they  were  the  old  giants  revived. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  Nephilim  are  not 
said  to  have  sprung  from  the  union  of  the  sons  of  God 
with  the  daughters  of  men.  The  statement  is  that  the 
Nephilim  were  in  the  earth  prior  to  these  intermarriages, 
and  also  after  these  intermarriages  had  taken  place.  But 
it  is  not  said  that  they  were  in  any  case  the  fruit  of  such 
marriages.  The  critics,  however,  tell  us  that  though  this 
is  not  expressly  stated,  it  is  imphed.  This  is  by  no 
means  necessarily  so.  But  suppose  it  to  be  granted ;  the 
mythological  interpretation  is  an  impossibility  neverthe- 
less. The  idea  that  the  Nephilim  were  a  superhuman 
race  sprung  from  the  union  of  angels  with  the  daughters 
of  men  is  completely  nullified  by  the  explicit  declaration 
that  the  Nephilim  existed  before  such  marriages  took 
place  as  well  as  after.  No  new  species  of  creature  can 
be  intended,  therefore,  whose  origin  is  traced  to  the  in- 
termarriage of  different  orders  of  beings. 

8.  It  is  objected  that  "  the  daughters  of  men "  must 
have  the  same  universal  sense  in  ver.  2  as  in  ver.  1 ;  and 
that  the  contrast  of  "  the  sons  of  God  "  with  "the  daugh- 
ters of  men  "  shows  that  different  orders  of  being  are  here 
referred  to.  But  this  contrast  works  precisely  the  other 
way.  It  has  been  already  shown  that  in  Scripture  lan- 
guage the  sons  of  God  are  his  chosen  people — the  God- 
fearing race.  In  contrast  with  them  "  the  daughters  of 
men  "  are  necessarily  limited  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  the 
ungodly  mass.  Abundant  illustrations  can  be  given  of 
the  restriction  put  upon  universal  terms  by  their  context. 
In  Jer.  xxxii.  20  God  is  said  to  have  set  signs  and  won- 
ders in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  Israel,  and  among  men.  It 
is  said  of  the  wicked  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  5),  "  They  are  not  in 


SONS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTEKS  OF  MEN  (CH.  VI.  1-8)      59 

trouble  as  meu  ;  neither  are  tliey  plagued  like  men."  In 
Judg.  xvi.  17,  Samson  says :  "  If  I  be  shaven  I  shall  be- 
come weak  and  be  like  all  men."  No  one  has  ever  in- 
ferred from  these  passages  that  Egypt  and  Israel,  the 
wicked  and  Samson,  belonged  to  some  other  race  of  be- 
ings because  they  are  set  in  contrast  with  "  men."  The 
universal  term  is  restricted  by  its  connection ;  and  hence 
the  English  version  properly  inserts  the  word  "  other  " 
and  reads  "  other  men."  '  A  precisely  parallel  case  may 
be  found  in  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  the  serpent 
(Gen.  iii.  15),  "  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the 
woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed."  The  seed 
of  the  woman  interpreted  by  the  following  verse  and 
taken  in  its  unlimited  sense  would  denote  all  her  de- 
scendants. But  the  contrast  with  the  seed  of  the  serpent 
necessarily  limits  it  to  those  of  her  race  who  have  not 
fallen  under  the  power  of  evil,  and  of  whom  alone  it  can 
be  said  that  they  shall  braise  the  serpent's  head. 

9.  Whatever  interpretation  be  put  upon  doubtful  ex- 
pressions in  ver.  3,  it  plainly  intimates  the  divine  pur- 
pose to  inflict  some  penalty  affecting  the  life  of  the  whole 
human  race.     "  His  days  shall  be  an  hundred  and  twenty 
years,"   if  spoken  of  the  generation  then  living,  would 
mean  that  they  should  not  survive  that  limit ;  if  of  suc- 
cessive generations  of  men,  that  this  should  henceforth 
be  the  term  of  human  life.     The  former  is  demanded  by 
>  Professor  Strack  (Comment,   on  Genesis,  p.    21 )  refers  likewise  to 
several  other  passages  in  which  general  terms  are  limited  by  the  con- 
nection, e.g..  Gen.  xiv.  16,  ''  the  women  and  the  people,"  i.e.,  the  rest 
of  the  people  ;  or  in  which  the  same  expression  is  used  first  in  a  uni- 
versal and  then  in  a  restricted  sense.     In  Judg.  xix.  30  "  the  children 
of  Israel "  means  the  entire  people,  but  in  the  immediately  following 
verses  (xx.  1-3)  all  except  Benjamin.     In  1  Sam.  xiii.  6  "the  people |'^ 
first  means  the  whole,  then  a  portion,  and  in  ver.  7,  "  all  the  people" 
means  the  rest  of  the  people.     So  Lev.    viii.   15,   "  the   blood "   and 
"the"  (rest  of  the)  "blood."     Compare  Ex.  xxix.  12;  Lev.  iv.  7,  18, 
25,  30,  34. 


60  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

the  context.  The  latter  is  preferred  by  critics  whose 
uniform  usage  is  to  intei-pret  at  variance  with  the  context, 
if  possible.  It  is  here  absolutely  without  support. 
There  is  no  suggestion  anywhere  that  the  duration  of 
human  life  was  ever  fixed  at  one  hundred  and  twenty 
years.  It  is  contradicted  by  all  that  is  recorded  of  the 
ages  of  subsequent  patriarchs  from  Noah  to  Jacob. 
This  verse,  then,  explicitly  points  to  a  catastrophe,  in 
which  that  whole  generation  should  be  involved,  and 
which  should  take  place  in  one  hundred  and  twenty  years. 

10.  Finally,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  argument  for 
diversity  of  writers  is  not  here  rested  in  any  measure 
upon  differences  of  diction  and  style.  The  attempt  which 
is  made  in  this  connection  to  analyze  one  of  the  so-called 
Pentateuchal  documents  still  further  into  primitive  and 
secondary  portions,  and  to  assign  vi.  1-4,  with  a  few  other 
brief  passages,  to  J',  in  distinction  from  J",  is  stoutly  re- 
sisted by  Dr.  Dillmann,^  who  says,  "  Aim,  the  writer's 
style  and  linguistic  peculiarities  are  alike  throughout  the 
alleged  older  and  more  recent  J  passages  ;  and  one  can- 
not see  how  the  later  writer  could  succeed  in  imitating 
the  primitive  document  in  so  deceptive  a  manner  ;  more- 
over, the  differences  between  the  passages  of  the  alleged 
primitive  document  are  actually  much  greater  than  be- 
tween it  and  that  which  is  alleged  to  be  secondary." 
Budde,^  too,  has  pointed  out  in  detail  the  exact  conform- 
ity of  vi.  1,  2,  in  all  its  clauses  and  expressions,  to  the 
language  of  other  passages,  which  are  ascribed  by  the 
critics  to  the  document  J. 

This   passage  has  been  considered  thus  at  length  in 

'  Die  Biiclier  Numeri,  Deuterouomium  und  Josua,  p.  632,  so,  too, 
Genesis,  p.  89,  and  yet  on  p.  117  he  not  very  consistently  concludes  that 
vs.  1-4  is  a  paragraph  from  a  more  ancient  document  which  J  has  incor- 
porated into  his  work,  and  has  modified  the  style  of  vs.  1,  2,  into  con- 
formity with  his  own. 

^  Biblische  Urgeschichte,  p.  6. 


SONS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN  (CH.  VI.  1-8)      61 

order  to  show  liow  futile  is  the  critical  allegation  that 
the  opening  verses  of  ch.  vi.  are  imbued  with  mytho- 
logical ideas,  and  have  been  inserted  here  from  some  un- 
known document,  and  made  to  bear  a  sense  at  variance 
with  their  original  and  proper  meaning.  We  have  before 
seen  how  groundless  is  the  assertion  that  iv.  17-24  im- 
plies that  there  had  been  no  deluge.  Neither  is  there 
any  such  implication  in  xi.  1-9.  The  further  conclusion 
that  these  passages  are  isolated  extracts  from  a  common 
source,  which  knew  nothing  of  any  such  catastrophe, 
f aUs  of  itself. 

MARKS   OF  J. 

Dillmann  finds  the  following  indications  of  J  in  vs.  1, 
2,  5-8. 

1.  Jehovah.  The  divine  names  will  be  considered 
separately. 

2.  !:nn  begin,  also  in  P  (Num.  xvii.  11,  12)  (E.  V.  xvi. 
46,  47)'! " 

3.  rraiiir;  '^SS'b:?  on  tJie  face  of  the  ground.  Though 
H'Kl'lil!  is  made  a  criterion  of  J,  and  its  presence  in  a  pas- 
sage is  held  to  warrant  its  reference  to  J,  it  nevertheless 
occurs  in  P  (Gen.  i.  25  ;  vi.  20 ;  ix.  2).  And  it  is  only  by 
critical  artifice  that  n^^i?  i3S  (viii.  13b)  is  excluded  from 
P,  though  it  is  enclosed  between  vs.  13a,  14,  which  are 
both  attributed  to  P,  and  it  is  the  direct  continuation  of 
13a,  and  is  in  structure  conformed  to  vi.  12,  P.  The 
occurrence  of  yns?  in  13a  and  of  Jn^ni?  in  13b  does  not 
justify  the  assumption  of  different  sources  any  more  than 
the  same  change  in  vii.  3,  4,  or  in  viii.  7,  8 ;  see  also  vs. 
9,  11,  where  no  one  dreams  of  a  difference  of  sources. 

4.  D'lSn  Though  Adam  is  used  as  a  proper  noun  in 
P,  it  is  also  treated  as  a  common  noun,  and  as  such  has 
the  article  in  i.  27 ;  vii.  21 ;  ix.  5,  6. 

5.  nit3  in  a  physical  sense.     So  in  P  (Gen.  i.  4 ;  xxv.  8  ; 


63  THE   GENEKATIONS   OF   ADAM 

Lev.  xxvii.  10,  12,  14,  33;  Num.  xiv.  7 ;  xxxvi.  6).  If  it  is 
not  applied  to  personal  beauty  in  P,  the  simple  reason  is 
that  the  critics  do  not  assign  to  P  any  passage  in  which 
this  idea  is  expressed. 

6.  ■^2.'?  imagination.  This  word  occurs  but  three  times 
in  the  Hexateuch  (Gen.  vi.  5 ;  viii,  21  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  21), 
and  is  uniformly  by  the  critics  referred  to  J. 

7.  pT  only.  This  word,  which  occurs  repeatedly  in  J, 
E,  and  D,  does  not  chance  to  be  foimd  in  the  passages 
attributed  to  P. 

8.  nszynn  to  he  grieved.  This  verb  is  here  found  in  a 
J  passage  (vi.  6).  It  occurs  twice  besides  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch, once  in  the  same  (Hithpael)  form  (xxxiv.  7),  and 
once  in  a  different  species  (Niphal)  (xlv.  5).  The  critics 
claim  them  all  for  J,  but  in  so  doing  have  to  resort  to  a 
somewhat  violent  procedure.  Ch.  xxxiv.  7  is  in  a  P  con- 
nection, the  preceding  verse  and  the  following  verses  be- 
ing given  to  P  ;  but  ver.  7  has  this  J  word,  an  E  phrase, 
"  which  ought  not  to  be  done  "  (cf.  xx.  9),  and  a  D  phrase, 
"  wrought  folly  in  Israel "  (Deut.  xxii.  21),  a  combination 
which  is  readily  explained  on  the  assumption  of  the  unity 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  on  the  principles  of  the  divisive 
critics  is  sufficiently  puzzling.  So  without  more  ado  the 
refractory  verse  is  cut  out  of  the  connection  to  which  it 
manifestly  belongs,  and  the  entire  conglomerate  is  made 
over  to  J.  Gen.  xlv.  5  is  in  an  E  connection,  and  con- 
tains what  are  regarded  as  E  characteristics,  but  is  split 
in  two  in  order  to  give  this  verb  to  J. 

9.  nrra  hlot  out,  destroy.  See  under  chs.  vi.-ix.,  Marks 
of  P,  No.'  19. 

10.  "jn  ^TQ  find  favor.  It  is  not  surprising  that  this 
expression,  which  naturally  has  its  place  chiefly  in  narra- 
tive sections,  does  not  occur  in  P,  to  which  only  occa- 
sional scraps  of  ordinary  narrative  are  assigned.  And 
yet  it  requires  some  nice  critical  surgery  to  limit  it  to  J. 


SONS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN  (CH.  VI.  1-8)      63 

Gen.  xxxiv.  11  is  in  a  P  connection.  Shecliem  there  con- 
tinues the  entreaty  begun  by  his  father  (vs.  8-10,  P),  and 
the  sons  of  Jacob  make  reply  to  Shechem  as  well  as  to  his 
father  (vs.  13-18,  P).  Nevertheless  this  verse  is  sundered 
from  its  connection  and  given  to  J  on  account  of  this 
very  phrase. 

11.  "Human  feelings  attributed  to  God"  (vi.  6,8). 
Elohim  is  the  general  term  for  God,  and  describes  him 
as  the  creator  of  the  world  and  its  universal  governor, 
while  Jehovah  is  his  personal  name,  and  that  by  which 
he  has  made  himself  known  as  the  God  of  a  gracious  rev- 
elation. Hence  divine  acts  of  condescension  to  men  and 
of  self-manifestation  are  more  naturally  associated  with 
the  name  Jehovah ;  whence  it  follows  that  anthropo- 
pathies  and  anthropomorphisms  occur  chiefly  in  Jehovah 
sections.  But  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the 
ideas  which  these  are  intended  to  suggest  and  the  most 
spiritual  and  exalted  notions  of  the  Most  High.  The 
loftiest  conceptions  of  God  are,  throughout  the  Scriptures, 
freely  combined  with  anthropomorphic  representations. 
His  infinite  condescension  is  no  prejudice  to  his  supreme 
exaltation.  These  are  not  different  ideas  of  God  sepa- 
rately entertained  by  different  writers,  but  different  as- 
pects of  the  divine  Being  which  enter  alike  into  every 
true  conception  of  him.  The  writer  of  1  Sam.  xv.  35 
does  not  hesitate  to  say,  "  Jehovah  repented,"  though  he 
had  said  but  a  few  verses  before  (ver.  29),  "he  is  not  a 
man  that  he  should  repent."  The  prophet  Amos  de- 
scribes Jehovah's  majestic  greatness  in  lofty  terms  (v.  8), 
and  yet  speaks  of  his  repenting  (vii.  3),  and  of  his  smelling 
the  odors  of  Israel's  offerings  (v.  21).  "  Jehovah  smelled 
a  sweet  savour  "  (Gen.  viii.  21,  J),  is  identical  in  thought 
and  language  with  the  constant  phrase  of  the  ritual,  "a 
sweet  savour  unto  Jehovah  "  (Lev.  i.  13,  P ;  cf.  Lev.  xxvi. 
31).     There  is,  accordingly,  no  incompatibility  between 


64  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ADAM 

the  representations  of  God  as  Jehovah  and  as  Elohim. 
These  supplement  and  complete  each  other,  and  there  is 
not  the  slightest  reason  for  imputing  them  to  the  variant 
conceptions  of  distinct  writers. 

Jehovah  is  used  in  vs.  3,  5-8  because  the  reference  is 
to  his  plan  of  grace  and  salvation,  which  the  growing 
wickedness  of  men  threatened  to  defeat :  in  order  to  pre- 
vent this  frustration  of  his  purpose  he  determines  to  de- 
stroy the  entire  human  race  with  the  exception  of  right- 
eous Noah.  Elohim  is  used  in  ver.  2,  because  of  the 
contrast  between  the  human  and  the  divine,  those  of 
an  earthly  and  those  of  a  heavenly  mind — between  the 
daughters  of  men  and  the  sons  of  God. 


in 

THE  GENEEATIONS   OF  NOAH  (CH.  VI.  9-IX.  29) 

THE   FLOOD    (CH.  VI.  9-IX.    17) 

In  tlie  passages  hitherto  esamiried  the  portions  referred 
respectively  to  P  and  J  have  been  separate  sections  ;  and 
■  an  ostensible  ground  of  partition  has  been  found  in  the 
alternation  of  divine  names,  in  difference  of  subject,  or  in 
the  varied  treatment  of  the  same  theme.  But  now  and 
henceforward  P  and  J  are  supposed  to  be  blended  in 
what  has  every  appearance  of  being  one  consistent  and 
continuous  nan-ative.  And  great  critical  tact  and  skill 
are  needed  to  separate  what  has  been  so  intimately 
joined  together.  Nevertheless  the  narrative  of  the  deluge 
is  counted  one  of  the  firmest  supports  of  the  divisive  hy- 
pothesis.    It  is  affirmed  that — 

1.  When  properly  disentangled  chs.  vi.-ix.  will  be 
found  to  contain  two  entirely  distinct  accounts  of  the 
deluge,  each  complete  in  itself,  and  that  these  differ  irrec- 
oncilably in  several  respects. 

2.  There  are  repetitions  which  show  that  two  different 
accounts  have  been  put  together. 

3.  The  alternation  of  divine  names  in  successive  para- 
graphs shows  that  these  have  proceeded  from  different 
writers. 

4.  The  same  thing  can  be  inferred  from  diversities  of 
language  and  style. 

5 


66  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 


THE   CEITICAL  PARTITION  OF  GEN.  VI.  5-IX.    17. 

Tlie  Prophetic  Narrator,  e/,  in  Italic. 
Tlie  Priestly  Writer,  P,  in  Boman. 
The  Redactor  in  Bi^ackets. 

VI.  5.  And  the  LORD  saw  that  the  loichedness  of  man 
ivas  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of  the 
thoughts  of  his  heart  loas  only  evil  continually.  6.  And  it 
repented  the  LORD  that  he  had  made  man  on  the  earth, 
and  it  grieved  him  at  his  heart.  7.  And  the  LORD  said, 
I  will  blot  out  man  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  of 
the  ground  [both  man  and  beast,  and  creeping  thing,  and 
fowl  of  the  heaven']  ;  for  it  repenteth  me  that  I  have  made 
them.     8.  But  Noah  found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  LORD. 

9.  THESE  ARE  THE  GENERATIONS  OF  NOAH: 

Noah  was  a  righteous  man,  perfect  in  his  generations : 
Noah  walked  with  God.  10.  And  Noah  begat  three  sons, 
Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth.  11.  And  the  earth  was  cor- 
rupt before  God,  and  the  earth  was  filled  with  violence. 
12.  And  God  saw  the  earth,  and,  behold,  it  was  corrupt ; 
for  all  flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth. 

13.  And  God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of  all  flesh  is 
come  before  me ;  for  the  earth  is  filled  with  violence 
through  them  ;  and  behold,  I  will  destroy  them  with  the 
earth.  14.  Make  thee  an  ark  of  gopher  wood  ;  rooms 
shalt  thou  make  in  the  ark,  and  shalt  pitch  it  within  and 
without  with  pitch.  15.  And  this  is  how  thou  shalt  make 
it :  the  length  of  the  ark  three  hundred  cubits,  the  breadth 
of  it  fifty  cubits,  and  the  height  of  it  thirty  cubits.  16. 
A  light  shalt  thou  make  to  the  ark,  and  to  a  cubit  shalt 
thou  finish  it  upward ;  and  the  door  of  the  ark  shalt  thou 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.   VI.  9-IX.    17)  67 

set  in  the  side  thereof;  with  lower,  second,  and  third 
stories  shalt  thou  make  it.  17.  And  I,  behold,  I  do  bring 
the  flood  of  waters  upon  the  earth,  to  destroy  all  flesh, 
wherein  is  the  breath  of  life,  from  under  heaven ;  every 
thing  that  is  in  the  earth  shall  die.  18.  But  I  will  estab- 
lish my  covenant  with  thee ;  and  thou  shalt  come  into 
the  ark,  thou,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  sou's 
wives  with  thee.  19.  And  of  every  living  thing  of  all 
flesh,  two  of  every  sort  shalt  thou  bring  into  the  ark,  to 
keep  them  alive  with  thee ;  they  shall  be  male  and  female. 
20.  Of  the  fowl  after  their  kind,  and  of  the  cattle  after 
their  kind,  of  every  creeping  thing  of  the  ground  after 
his  kind,  two  of  every  sort  shall  come  unto  thee,  to  keep 
them  alive.  21.  And  take  thou  unto  thee  of  all  food  that 
is  eaten,  and  gather  it  to  thee ;  and  it  shall  be  for  food 
for  thee  and  for  them.  22.  Thus  did  Noah;  according 
to  all  that  God  commanded  him,  so  did  he. 

VII.  1.  A7id  the  LORD  said  unto  Noah,  Come  thou  and 
all  thy  house  into  the  ark ;  for  thee  have  I  seen  righteous 
before  me  in  this  generation.  2.  Of  every  clean  beast  thou 
shalt  take  to  thee  seven  and  seven,  the  male  and  his  female  : 
and  of  the  beasts  that  are  not  clean  tiuo,  the  male  and  his 
female :  3.  also  of  the  foivl  of  the  heaven,  seven  and  seven, 
male  and  female  ;  to  keep  seed  alive  upon  the  face  of  all 
the  earth.  4.  For  yet  seven  days,  and  I  luill  cause  it  to 
rain  iipon  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights  ;  and  every 
living  thing  that  I  have  made  ivill  I  destroy  from  off  the 
face  of  the  ground.  5.  And  Noah  did  accoi'ding  to  all  that 
the  LORD  commanded  him.  6.  And  Noah  was  six  hundred 
years  old  when  the  flood  of  waters  was  upon  the  earth. 
7.  And  Noah  went  in,  and  his  sons,  and  his  ivife,  and  his 
sons'  ivives  with  him,  into  the  ark,  because  of  the  waters  of 
the  flood.  8.  \^0f  clean  beasts,  and  of  beasts  that  are  not 
clean,  and  of  foivls,  and  of  every  thing  that  creepeth  upon 
the  ground  9.  there  ivent  in  tivo  and  two,  unto  Noah  into 


68  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

the  ark,  male  and  female,  as  God  commanded  Noah].  10. 
And  it  came  to  pass  after  the  seven  days,  that  the  waters  of 
the  flood  luere  upon  the  earth.  11.  lu  tlie  six  liundredtli 
year  of  Noah's  life,  in  the  second  month,  on  the  seven- 
teenth day  of  the  month,  on  the  same  day  were  all  the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep  broken  up,  and  the  windows 
of  heaven  were  opened.  12.  And  the  rain  was  upon  the 
earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights.  13.  In  the  selfsame  day 
entered  Noah,  and  Shem,  and  Ham,  and  Japheth,  the 
sons  of  Noah,  and  Noah's  wife,  and  the  three  wives  of 
his  sons  with  them,  into  the  ark  ;  14.  they,  and  every 
beast  after  his  kind,  and  all  the  cattle  after  their  kind, 
and  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth 
after  his  kind,  and  every  fowl  after  his  kind,  every  bird 
of  every  sort.  15.  And  they  went  in  unto  Noah  into  the 
ark,  two  and  two  of  all  flesh,  wherein  is  the  breath  of 
life.  16.  And  they  that  went  in,  went  in  male  and  female 
of  all  flesh,  as  God  commanded  him:  and  the  LORD  shut 
him  in.  17.  Aiid  the  flood  ivas  forty  days  upon  the  earth  ; 
and  the  loaters  increased,  and  hare  up  the  ark,  and  it  loas 
lift  up  above  the  earth.  18.  And  the  waters  prevailed, 
and  increased  greatly  upon  the  earth  ;  and  the  ark  went 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters.  19,  And  the  waters  pre- 
vailed exceedingly  upon  the  earth ;  and  all  the  high 
mountains,  that  were  under  the  whole  heaven,  were 
covered.  20.  Fifteen  cubits  upward  did  the  waters  pre- 
vail ;  and  the  mountains  were  covered.  21.  And  all 
flesh  died  that  moved  upon  the  earth,  both  fowl,  and 
cattle,  and  beast,  and  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth 
upon  the  earth,  and  every  man.  22.  All  in  lohose  nostrils 
was  the  breath  of  the  spirit  of  life,  of  all  that  was  in  the 
dry  land,  died.  23.  And  every  living  thing  was  destroyed 
ivhich  was  upon  the  face  of  the  ground  [both  man,  and 
cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and  fowl  of  the  heaven]  ;  and 
they  ivere  destroyed  from  the  earth:  and  Noah  only  luas 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.    VI.  9-IX.    17)  69 

left,  and  they  that  were  loith  him  in  the  ark.  24.  And  the 
waters  prevailed  upon  the  earth  an  hundred  and  fifty 
days. 

VIII.  1.  And  God  remembered  Noah,  and  every  living 
thing,  and  all  the  cattle  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark : 
and  God  made  a  wind  to  pass  over  the  earth,  and  the 
waters  assuaged ;  2.  the  fountains  also  of  the  deep  and 
the  windows  of  heaven  were  stopped,  and  the  rain  from 
heaven  was  restrained ;  3.  and  the  ivaters  returned  from 
off  the  earth  continually :  and  after  the  end  of  an  hundred 
and  fifty  days  the  waters  decreased.  4.  And  the  ark 
rested  in  the  seventh  month,  on  the  seventeenth  day 
of  the  month,  upon  the  mountains  of  Ararat.  5.  And  the 
waters  decreased  continually  until  the  tenth  month :  in 
the  tenth  month,  on  the  first  day  of  the  month,  were  the 
tops  of  the  mountains  seen.  6.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the 
end  of  forty  days,  that  Noah  opened  the  loindoio  of  the  ark 
which  he  had  made:  7.  and  he  sent  forth  the  raven,  and  it 
went  forth  to  and  fro,  until  the  ivaters  luere  dried  up  from 
off  the  earth.  8.  And  he  sent  forth  the  dove  from  him,  to  see 
if  the  waters  were  abated  from  off  the  face  of  the  ground  ; 
9.  hut  the  dove  found  no  rest  for  the  sole  of  her  foot,  and 
she  returned  unto  him,  to  the  ark,  for  the  waters  ivere  on  the 
face  of  the  luhole  earth  :  and  he  put  forth  his  hand,  and 
took  her,  and  brought  her  in  %mto  him  into  the  ark.  10.  And 
he  stayed  yet  other  seven  days  ;  and  again  he  sent  forth  the 
dove  out  of  the  ark;  11.  and  the  dove  came  in  to  him  at 
eventide  ;  and,  lo,  in  her  mouth  an  olive  leaf  pluckt  off:  so 
Noah  knew  that  the  loaters  loere  abated  from  off  the  earth. 
12.  And  he  stayed  yet  other  seven  days  ;  and  sent  forth  the 
dove  ;  and  she  returned  not  again  tmto  him  any  more.  13. 
And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  six  hrmdred  and  first  year,  in 
the  first  month,  the  first  day  of  the  month,  the  waters 
were  dried  up  from  ofl*  the  earth  ;  and  Noah  removed  the 
covering  of  the  ark,  and  looked,  and,  behold,  the  face  of  the 


70  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

ground  ivas  dried.  14.  And  in  the  second  month,  on  the 
seven  and  twentieth  day  of  the  month,  was  the  earth 
dry. 

15.  And  God  spake  unto  Noah,  saying,  16.  Go  forth  of 
the  ark,  thou,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  sons' 
wives  with  thee.  17.  Bring  forth  with  thee  every  living 
thing  that  is  with  thee  of  all  flesh,  both  fowl,  and  cattle, 
and  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  ; 
that  they  may  breed  abundantly  in  the  earth,  and  be 
fruitful,  and  multiply  upon  the  earth.  18.  And  Noah 
went  forth,  and  his  sons,  and  his  wife,  and  his  sons' 
wives  with  him  :  19.  every  beast,  every  creeping  thing, 
and  every  fowl,  whatsoever  moveth  upon  the  earth, 
after  their  families,  went  forth  out  of  the  ark.  20.  And 
Noah  huilded  an  altar  unto  the  LORD  ;  and  took  of  every 
clean  beast,  and  of  every  clean  fowl,  and  offered  burnt- 
offerings  on  the  altar.  21.  And  the  LORD  smelled  the 
siveet  savour  ;  and  the  LORD  said  in  his  heart,  I  luill  not 
again  curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man^ s  sahe,  for  that 
the  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth; 
neither  ivill  I  again  smite  any  more  every  thing  living,  as  I 
have  done.  22.  While  the  earth  remaineth,  seed-time  and 
hai'vest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and  summer  and  ivinter,  and 
day  and  night  shall  not  cease. 

IX.  1.  And  God  blessed  Noah  and  his  sons,  and  said 
unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  fill  the  earth. 
2.  And  the  fear  of  you  and  the  dread  of  you  shall  be 
upon  every  beast  of  the  earth,  and  upon  every  fowl  of 
the  heaven,  even  all  that  moveth  upon  the  groimd,  and 
all  the  fishes  of  the  sea ;  into  your  hand  are  they  de- 
livered. 3.  Every  moving  thing  that  liveth  shall  be  food 
for  you  ;  as  the  green  herb  have  I  given  you  all.  4.  But 
flesh  with  the  life  thereof,  the  blood  thereof,  shall  ye 
not  eat.  5.  And  surely  your  blood  of  your  lives  will  I 
require ;  at  the  hand  of  every  beast  will  I  require  it,  and 


THE  FLOOD   (CH.   VI.  9-IX.   17)  71 

at  the  hand  of  man ;  at  the  hand  of  every  man's  brother 
will  I  require  the  life  of  man.  6.  Whoso  sheddeth  man's 
blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed :  for  in  the  image 
of  God  made  he  man.  7.  And  you,  be  ye  fruitful,  and 
multiply ;  bring  forth  abundantly  in  the  earth,  and  mul- 
tiply therein. 

8.  And  God  spake  unto  Noah,  and  to  his  sons  with 
him,  saying,  9.  And  I,  behold,  I  establish  my  covenant 
with  you,  and  with  your  seed  after  you:  10.  and  with 
every  living  creature  that  is  with  you,  the  fowl,  the 
cattle,  and  every  beast  of  the  earth  with  you ;  of  all  that 
go  out  of  the  ark,  even  every  beast  of  the  earth.  11. 
And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  with  you  ;  neither 
shall  all  flesh  be  cut  off  any  more  by  the  waters  of  the 
flood ;  neither  shall  there  any  more  be  a  flood  to  destroy 
the  earth.  12.  And  God  said.  This  is  the  token  of  the 
covenant  which  I  make  between  me  and  you  and  every 
living  creature  that  is  with  you,  for  perpetual  genera- 
tions :  13.  my  bow  have  I  set  in  the  cloud,  and  it  shall 
be  for  a  token  of  a  covenant  between  me  and  the  earth. 
14.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  I  bring  a  cloud  over 
the  earth,  that  the  bow  shall  be  seen  in  the  cloud,  15.  and 
I  will  remember  my  covenant,  which  is  between  me  and 
you  and  every  living  creature  of  all  flesh  ;  and  the  waters 
shall  no  more  become  a  flood  to  destroy  all  flesh.  16. 
And  the  bow  shall  be  in  the  cloud ;  and  I  will  look  upon 
it,  that  I  may  remember  the  everlasting  covenant  between 
God  and  every  living  creature  of  all  flesh  that  is  upon 
the  earth.  17.  And  God  said  unto  Noah,  This  is  the 
token  of  the  covenant,  which  I  have  established  between 
me  and  all  flesh  that  is  upon  the  earth. 

J  NOT  CONTINUOUS. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  portion  of  the  narrative  which 
is  assigned  to  J,  and  see  whether  it  gives  a  complete  ac- 


72  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

count  of  the  flood,  with  no  breaks  or  interruptions.  It 
begins  with  vi.  5-8.  We  read  in  ver.  8,  "  But  Noah 
found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord."  This  implies  that 
the  reader  had  already  been  made  acquainted  with  Noah. 
And  so  he  had  in  the  scriptural  account,  which  details 
his  ancestry  in  ch.  v. ;  but  this  is  given  by  the  critics  to  P. 
No  previous  mention  of  Noah,  or  allusion  to  him  is  made 
in  the  sections  attributed  to  J  ;  yet  here  he  is  spoken 
of  as  a  well-known  personage.  Evidently  something  is 
wanting  in  J  corresponding  to  what  has  been  abstracted 
from  preceding  chapters  and  assigned  to  P.  The  critics 
endeavor  to  escape  this  difficulty  by  alleging  that  v.  29, 
in  which  Noah  is  mentioned,  belongs  to  J.  But  in  doing 
so  they  violate  their  own  test.  It  is  one  of  their  criteria 
for  distinguishing  these  documents  that  in  J  the  mother 
gives  name  to  the  child,  but  in  P  the  father ;  see  Dillmann 
on  Gen.  xvi.  11.  Consequently,  on  their  own  principles, 
"  And  he  (Lamech)  called  his  name  Noah  "  must  belong 
to  P,  and  not  to  J.  In  ver.  7  we  are  told  that  the  redac- 
tor has  inserted  the  second  clause,  "  both  man  and  beast, 
and  creeping  thing,  and  fowl  of  the  heaven,"  because  such 
detailed  enumerations  are  foreign  to  J's  supposed  style. 
This  is  a  confession  that  the  text  in  its  present  form  can- 
not on  critical  principles  be  assigned  to  J.  It  does  not 
suit  the  hypothesis,  but  must  be  amended  into  conform- 
ity with  the  hypothesis.  In  other  words,  the  hypothesis 
must  here  be  supported  by  an  inference  drawn  from  the 
hypothesis.  But  this  clause,  though  imwelcome  to  the 
critics,  cannot  be  omitted  from  the  verse,  for  the  plural 
pronoun  "  them  "  at  the  end  of  it  refers  to  these  particu- 
lars in  this  second  clause,  not  merely  to  "  man  "  in  the 
first  clause,  which  would  call  for  a  pronoun  in  the  singu- 
lar ;  see  "  his  heart,"  ver.  5. 

If,  however,  we  take  ver.  7  as  the  critics  have  corrected 
it,  leaving  out  the  second  clause,  then  it  declares  that  the 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.    VI.    9-IX.    17)  73 

Lord  said,  not  to  Noah  but  to  himself,  i.e.,  he  resolved, 
that  he  would  destroy  man,  no  mention  being  made  of 
the  way  in  which  this  was  to  be  effected,  nor  whether  the 
inferior  creatures  would  be  involved.  J  then  springs  at 
once  to  vii.  1,  where  "  the  Lord  said  to  Noah,  Come  thou 
and  all  thy  house  into  the  ark ;  "  though  there  is  no 
previous  allusion  in  J  to  the  fact  that  Noah  had  a  family, 
or  that  there  was  an  ark,  or  any  occasion  for  there  being 
an  ark.  To  be  sure,  all  this  has  been  explained  before ; 
vi.  10  speaks  of  Noah's  three  sons,  and  vs.  13-22  tell 
how  God  told  Noah  of  the  coining  flood  and  bid  him 
build  an  ark  for  the  safety  of  his  house  and  the  various 
sjDecies  of  living  things,  and  that  Noah  did  so.  But  all 
this  is  assigned  to  P;  there  is  not  a  word  of  it  in  J. 
Clearly  there  is  something  missing  in  J  ;  and  just  that  is 
missing  which  has  been  abstracted  from  the  previous 
narrative  and  given  by  the  critics  to  P. 

In  vs.  7-10  we  have  J's  account  of  Noah's  entry  into 
the  ark.  But  ver.  9,  we  are  told,  has  been  manipulated 
by  the  redactor.  The  words  "there  went  in  two  and 
two,"  "male  and  female  "  and  "  God  "  are  characteristics 
of  P.  Here  again  the  text  is  not  in  accord  with  the  hy- 
pothesis ;  a  number  of  P's  words  and  expressions  are  in 
a  J  paragraph,  and  it  must  be  the  fault  of  the  redactor. 
But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  not  a  verse  in  the  para- 
graph which  is  just  as  it  should  be,  if  the  critics  are 
right.  The  detailed  enumeration,  "  Noah  and  his  sons, 
and  his  wife,  and  his  sons'  wives  "  (ver.  7),  instead  of 
simply  Noah  and  all  his  house,  as  ver.  1,  is  foreign  to  J  ; 
so  in  ver.  8,  "  beasts  and  fowls  and  every  thing  that  creep- 
eth,"  instead  of  "  every  living  thing,"  as  ver.  4  ;  and 
"  waters  of  the  flood "  ^   (vs.   7,  10)   refer  back    to   P's 

'  Noldeke  sajs  that  the  agreement  of  J  and  P  is  very  remarkable  in 
the  words  blS^G  flood,  T\2r\  ark,  and  Ili  Nonh.  Budde  and  Dillmann 
try  to  escape  the  admission  that  ver.  7,  J,  refers  back  to  ver.  6,  P,  by 
arbitrarily  transposing  ver.  10  so  as  to  stand  before  ver.  7. 


74  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

plirase,  vi.  17  ;  vii.  G.  It  is  said  that  the  redactor  "  ap- 
parently designed  to  bring  the  style  a  little  more  closely 
into  harmony  with  that  of  P."  But  why  he  should  be  so 
concerned  just  here  to  alter  expressions  which  he  leaves 
unchanged  elsewhere,  does  not  appear.  And  it  is  par- 
ticularly surprising  that  he  should  of  his  own  motion 
introduce  what  the  critics  consider  a  discrepancy  into 
J's  account.  How  could  he  make  J  appear  to  say  in  vs. 
8,  9,  "  of  clean  beasts  and  of  beasts  that  are  not  clean 
.  .  .  there  went  in  two  and  two  unto  Noah  into  the 
ark,"  in  open  contradiction,  as  the  critics  allege,  with  what 
he  had  said  just  before  in  ver.  2/  that  clean  beasts  were 
to  go  in  seven  and  seven,  and  of  beasts  not  clean  two  ? 
And  yet  we  are  told  that  the  documents  "are  woven  to- 
gether in  a  highly  artistic  manner,"  and  the  redactor's 
work  is  "  admirably  "  done.  If  this  is  so,  he  must  have 
been  an  intelligent  person  and  could  not  have  made 
grossly  contradictory  statements  "within  the  comjjass  of  a 
few  lines  without  perceiving  it.  He  certainly  could  have 
seen  nothing  of  the  sort  here,  or  he  would  not  gratui- 
tously have  inserted  a  discrepancy  in  the  text  of  his  own 
accord,  which  w^as  not  there  in  the  document  from  which 
he  was  copying.  And  if  he  did  not  see  it,  perha23S  there 
is  no  contradiction  after  all.  It  may  be  that  the  critics 
are  mistaken  in  fancjdng  that  there  is  one.  And  in 
point  of  fact  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  general 
statement  that  two  of  every  species,  a  male  and  a  female, 
entered  the  ark  and  the  more  particular  declaration  that 
there  were  seven  of  every  species  of  clean  beasts  and  two 
of  those  that  were  not  clean.  If,  then,  the  redactor  is  in 
harmony  with  J  (vii.  2,  3),  there  is  no  discrepancy  be- 
tween J  (vii.  2,  3)  and  P  (vi.  19  ;  vii.  15). 

'  Kayser,  p.  8,  enlarges  the  text  of  vii.  3,  to  restore  it  to  what  he  con- 
ceives to  be  its  primitive  form.  So,  too,  he  modifies  the  text  of  vii.  7-9 
into  what  he  considers  its  primitive  form.  The  fact  that  it  is  not  as  he 
would  reconstruct  it,  shows  the  falsity  of  his  critical  presuppositions. 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.    VI.   9-IX.   17)  75 

In  what  follows,  the  semblance  of  continuity  can  only 
be  made  out  for  J  by  means  of  scattered  sentences  and 
clauses  torn  from  their  connection  in  an  arbitrary  man- 
ner. Thus  J  proceeds  to  ver.  12,  and  then  skips  to  16b  : 
"  And  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty 
nights  .  .  .  and  the  Lord  shut  him  in."  It  is  nat- 
ural to  ask  why  the  Lord  waited  forty  days  before  he 
shut  the  door  of  the  ark  behind  Noah.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  last  clause  of  ver.  16  has  no  proper  connection 
with  ver.  12,  to  which  the  critics  attach  it.  It  plainly 
belongs  where  it  stands  in  the  text.  The  severance  of 
ver.  16  annuls  the  significant  and  evidently  intended 
contrast  of  the  two  divine  names  in  this  verse,  to  the 
significance  of  which  Delitzsch  calls  attention,  thus  dis- 
crediting the  basis  of  the  critical  analysis,  which  he  nev- 
ertheless accepts.  Animals  of  every  species  went  into 
the  ark,  as  Elohim,  the  God  of  creation  and  providence 
directed,  mindful  of  the  preservation  of  what  he  had 
made  ;  Jehovah,  the  guardian  of  his  people,  shut  Noah  in. 

The  rise  of  the  waters  of  the  flood  is  depicted  in  vs. 
17-20  in  four  successive  stages.  The  critics  arbitrarily 
sunder  one  of  these  (ver.  17)  from  the  rest,  and  assign  it 
to  J.  The  destruction  accomplished  by  the  flood  is  simi- 
larly described  in  three  successive  statements  of  grow- 
ing intensity  (vs.  21-23).  Two  of  these  are  parted  from 
the  remaining  one  and  given  to  J  (vs.  22,  23). 

The  next  clause  of  J  is  viii.  2b,  "  and  the  rain  from 
heaven  was  restrained."  Just  before  we  read  in  vii.  24, 
"  the  waters  prevailed  upon  the  earth  an  hundred  and  fifty 
days."  The  critics  find  a  discrepancy  between  this  and  vii. 
4, 12,  according  to  which  it  rained  forty  days.  The  intel- 
ligent redactor  has  been  at  fault  here  again.  He  has  in- 
serted this  clause  respecting  the  stopping  of  the  rain  in 
the  wrong  place.  It  should  have  preceded  vii.  24,  instead 
of  following  it.     But  we  may  shelter  ourselves  behind 


76  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

him  once  more.  If  he  saw  no  impropriety  in  putting 
this  clause  where  he  did,  perhaps  there  was  none.  He 
may  not  thus  have  brought  J  into  conflict  with  himself 
after  all.  If  it  had  been  said  that  the  rain  from  heaven 
was  not  restrained  after  one  hundred  and  fifty  days  had 
passed,  there  would,  indeed,  have  been  a  discrej^ancy. 
But  where  is  the  discrei3ancy  in  saying  that  it  had 
stopped  ? 

The  last  clause  of  viii.  2  is  separated  from  the  first, 
one  being  given  to  J,  and  the  other  to  P.  But  this  is 
severing  what  of  necessity  belongs  together.  We  find 
the  same  combination  here  as  in  vii.  11,  12,  where  the 
sources  of  the  flood  are  described,  and  the  critics  split 
them  asunder  after  the  same  fashion.  These  sources 
were  two,  viz. :  the  rushing  in  of  the  waters  of  the  ocean 
upon  the  land,  and  the  torrents  descending  from  the  sky. 
The  tenses  of  the  Hebrew  verbs  at  once  indicate  to  the 
reader  that  the  bursting  forth  of  the  fountains  of  the 
great  deep  and  the  opening  of  the  windows  of  heaven 
are  separate  items,  while  the  fall  of  the  rain  is  a  sequence 
of  that  which  just  preceded.  The  opening  of  the  win- 
dows of  heaven  prepares  the  way  for  the  downpom-,  but 
is  not  the  downpour  itself.  The  thought  is  not  complete 
until  the  actual  fall  of  rain  is  added.  Comp.  Mai.  iii.  10. 
The  opening  of  the  windows  of  heaven  cannot,  therefore, 
be  attributed  to  one  writer  and  the  rain  to  another  ;  both 
belong  indissolubly  together.  The  same  is  the  case  with 
viii.  2  ;  the  last  clause  is  inseparable  from  the  first.  And 
besides,  "  the  rain  from  heaven  "  is  evidently  contrasted 
with  "  the  fountains  of  the  deep,''  so  that  the  two  clauses 
of  the  verse  are  bound  together  thus  again.  And  ver.  3a 
cannot  be  separated  from  ver.  2.  The  latter  states  that 
the  sources  of  the  flood  had  ceased ;  but  this  would  not, 
of  itself  account  for  the  subsidence  of  the  water.  The 
stopping  of  the  fountains  of  the  deep  and  of  the  windows 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.    VI.    9-IX.   17)  77 

of  heaven  are  purely  negative ;  to  tliis  must  be  added  the 
positive  flowing  o&  of  the  water,  if  the  flood  was  to  be 
reduced.  To  sever  this  clause  from  P  and  give  it  to  J, 
as  is  done  by  the  critics,  leaves  P's  statement  inadequate 
and  incomplete.  And  the  phraseology  used  shows  the 
same  thing ;  "  the  waters  reLunied  ;  "  whither  ?  certainly 
not  to  heaven  (2b),  but  to  the  deep  (2a),  from  which  the 
great  body  of  them  had  come.  So  that  if  the  word  "  re- 
turned "  is  to  have  anything  like  its  proper  force,  ver.  3a 
is  tied  to  2a,  and  cannot  be  severed  from  it  as  the  critics 
propose. 

Then  the  sending  out  of  the  birds  (vs.  6-12)  is  given 
to  J.  In  vs.  13,  14,  the  drying  of  the  earth  is  stated  in 
two  stages ;  one  of  these  (ver.  13b)  is  arbitrarily  given  to 
J,  and  the  other  (ver.  11)  to  P.  J  makes  no  allusion  to 
Noah's  leaving  the  ark,  which  is  another  serious  break 
in  his  narrative.  This  is  spoken  of,  indeed,  in  the 
Scripture  account  (vs.  15-19) ;  but  it  is  given  to  P.  So 
that  here  again  we  miss  in  J  precisely  what  has  been  ab- 
stracted by  the  critics  and  attributed  to  the  other  docu- 
ment. J's  account  concludes  with  Noah's  sacrifice  (vs. 
20-22). 

Instead,  therefore,  of  a  complete  account  with  no  in- 
terruptions, we  find  in  the  portion  assigned  to  J  several 
important  gaps  created  purely  by  the  critical  partition ; 
other  chasms  scantily  bridged  by  scattered  clauses  torn 
from  their  context,  in  which  they  are  indispensable,  or 
attached  to  passages  where  they  are  inappropriate ;  ex- 
pressions which  by  critical  rules  cannot  belong  to  J,  and 
require  the  assumption,  which  has  no  other  basis  than 
the  exigencies  of  the  hypothesis,  that  the  text  has  been 
manipulated  by  the  redactor ;  and  discrepancies,  so  called, 
which  are  wholly  due  to  the  redactor's  gratuitous  inter- 
ference. 


78  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 


P  NOT  CONTINUOUS 

Let  US  now  see  how  it  is  with  P.  The  first  paragraph 
assigned  to  him  is  vi.  9-22.  We  here  read  (vs.  11,  12), 
"  And  God  saw  the  earth,  and,  behold,  it  was  corrupt ; " 
and  so  corrupt  that  he  was  determined  to  destroy  it.  The 
form  of  expression  here  is  with  manifest  allusion  to  i.  31, 
where  P  had  said,  "  And  God  saw  every  thing  that  he  had 
made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good."  The  existing  state 
of  things  is  plainly  set  in  designed  contrast  to  the  state- 
ment made  at  the  creation.  But  not  a  word  of  explana- 
tion is  offered  to  account  for  this  dreadful  change.  It  is 
indeed  explained  sufficiently  in  the  Scripture  narrative. 
The  intervening  chapters  tell  us  of  the  fall,  of  the  grow- 
ing degeneracy  of  the  ungodly  race  of  Cain,  of  the  infec- 
tion even  of  the  godly  race  by  intermarriage  with  the  rest. 
But  all  this  is  by  the  critics  attributed  to  J  ;  there  is 
nothing  of  the  kind  in  P.  Plainly  something  is  missing 
here  ;  and  just  that  is  missing  which  the  critics  have 
transferred  to  another  document. 

P  then  proceeds  to  teU  that  Noah  was  instructed  to 
build  the  ark,  which  he  did,  and  records  his  age  at  the 
coming  of  the  flood  (vii.  6,  11),  and  his  entry  with  some 
of  all  living  things  into  the  ark  (vs.  13-16). 

The  sacred  writer  labors  to  produce  a  vivid  impression 
of  the  enormous  rise  of  the  waters  of  the  flood  by  de- 
scribing it  in  four  successive  stages  until  it  reached  the 
prodigious  altitude  which  it  actually  attained.  First 
(ver.  17),  the  water  rose  sufficiently  to  float  the  ark. 
Then  (ver.  18)  it  rose  very  much  higher  still,  and  the  ark 
mounted  aloft  upon  its  surface.  Next  (ver.  19),  it  at- 
tained such  a  height  as  to  cover  all  the  high  mountains 
within  the  entire  horizon.  Finally  (ver.  20),  it  reached 
its  maximum,  fifteen  cubits  above    the  mountain-tops. 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.    VI.   9-IX.    17)  79 

This  regular  gradation  is  broken  apart  by  the  critics, 
who  assign  the  first  or  lowest  stage  to  J,  and  the  other 
three  stages  to  P,  thus  giving  to  each  a  truncated  de- 
scription, which  when  put  together  match  precisely  and 
supply  just  what  before  was  wanting  in  each.  Is  this 
a  lucky  accident,  or  has  not  this  entire  description  eman- 
ated from  one  mind  ? 

The  sacred  writer  seeks  again  to  give  adequate  expres- 
sion to  the  destruction  wrought  by  the  flood  by  three 
successive  statements  of  increasing  strength.  First  (ver. 
21),  he  declares  with  emphatic  particularity  that  all  flesh 
died,  fowl  and  cattle  and  beast  and  creeping  thing  and 
man.  Then  (ver.  22),  in  the  most  universal  terms,  "  All 
in  whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  the  spirit  of  life,  of  all 
that  was  in  the  dry  land,  died."  Finally  (ver.  23),  universal 
and  particular  terms  are  combined,  and  the  most  forcible 
expression  for  complete  destruction  added  in  contrast 
with  the  sole  survivors  :  "  And  every  living  thing  was 
wiped  out  which  was  upon  the  face  of  the  ground,  both 
man  and  cattle  and  creeping  thing  and  fowl  of  the 
heaven  ;  and  they  were  wiped  out  from  the  earth ;  and 
Noah  only  was  left,  and  they  that  were  with  him  in  the 
ark."  Disregarding  these  climactic  periods,  which  are 
heaped  together  in  order  to  intensify  the  contrast  of  the 
last  clause,  the  critics  give  the  first  of  the  sentences  to 
P,  thus  sundering  it  completely  from  what  follows,  the 
result  of  which  is  to  make  P  afiirm,  in  the  most  absolute 
manner,  the  universality  of  the  destruction  without  so 
much  as  a  single  survivor.  The  next  two  verses  are 
given  to  J  in  spite  of  the  enumeration  of  particulars  in 
ver.  23,  "  both  man  and  cattle  and  creeping  thing  and 
fowl  of  the  heaven,"  which,  according  to  critical  princi- 
ples, is  foreign  to  his  style,  and  must  be  thrown  out  of 
the  text  as  an  insertion  by  the  redactor.  The  passage 
does  not  correspond  with  the  hypothesis,  and  is  hence 


so  THE   GENERATIONS   OF  NOAH 

corrected  into  conformity  with  it.  And  yet  this  clause, 
which  is  objectionable  to  the  critics  and  which  they  pro- 
pose to  eliminate,  is  one  of  the  features  of  the  verse 
which  adapts  it  to  the  climactic  position  that  it  occupies. 

It  has  before  been  shown  that  yiii.  2,  3,  cannot  be  par- 
titioned as  the  critics  propose  ;  and  that  the  severance 
of  vs.  2b,  3,  as  an  insertion  from  J,  would  leave  P's 
statement  incomplete. 

The  narrative  then  proceeds  after  the  same  analogy  to 
describe  the  subsidence  of  the  flood.  And  it  may  be 
proper  to  note  that  the  seven  stages  of  the  decline  of  the 
water  precisely  correspond  with  the  four  stages  of  its 
rise  added  to  the  three  statements  of  its  wide-spread  deso- 
lation. First  (viii.  1),  a  wind  passed  over  the  earth, 
which  served  to  reduce  the  volume  of  the  water.  Sec- 
ondly (vs.  2-4),  the  sources  of  the  flood  had  ceased,  and 
the  water  flowed  off  to  such  an  extent  that  the  ark  rested 
on  the  mountains  of  Ararat.  Thirdly  (ver.  5),  the  water 
still  further  decreased  and  the  tops  of  the  mountains  ap- 
peared. Fourthly  (vs.  6-9),  as  the  water  continued  to 
sink,  a  dove  was  sent  forth  after  forty  days,  but  the 
flood  was  still  at  such  a  height  that  no  resting-place 
could  be  found.  Fifthly  (vs.  10,  11),  after  seven  days 
more  the  water  had  abated  sufficiently  for  trees  to 
emerge,  as  was  shown  by  the  olive  leaf  plucked  off  by  the 
dove.  Sixthly  (ver.  12),  the  dove  was  sent  out  and  re- 
turned no  more.  Seventh,  and  finally  (ver.  13),  the  day 
is  noted  on  which  Noah  discovered  that  the  water  was 
dried  up  from  off  the  earth.  This  regular  gradation  is 
spoiled  by  the  critics,  who  assign  (vs.  6-12)  the  mission  of 
the  birds,  to  J ;  the  consequence  of  which  is  that  P 
springs  at  once  from  ver.  5,  the  first  appearance  of  the 
mountain-tops,  to  ver.  13,  where  the  waters  were  dried 
up  from  off  the  earth. 

The  prominence  given  to  the  sending  out  of  the  birds 


THE  FLOOD   (CH.  VI.  9-IX.    17)  81 

in  the  Chaldean  account  of  the  deluge,  which  is  univer- 
sally confessed  to  stand  in  an  intimate  relation  to  that 
in  Genesis,  further  shows  that  any  narrative  of  the  flood 
would  be  incomplete  if  this  were  not  included.  Least 
of  all  can  this  be  questioned  by  those  who  maintain  that 
the  Hebrew  narrative  was  borrowed  from  the  Chaldean. 

The  paragraph  respecting  the  birds  (viii.  6-12)  is  quite 
devoid  of  any  critical  marks  allying  it  to  one  or  the  other 
of  the  documents,  as  is  apparent  from  the  history  of  its 
treatment.  From  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  to  the  supple- 
mentary critics  Tuch  and  Knobel,  it  was  almost  uni- 
formly assigned  to  P.  Stahelin  is  uncertain  about  it. 
Reuss  regards  it  as  the  sole  surviving  remnant  of  a  third 
account  of  the  flood,  distinct  from  the  other  two.  Hup- 
feld  gives  (ver.  7)  the  raven  to  J,  and  (vs.  8-12)  the  dove 
to  P.  Friedrich  Delitzsch  reverses  the  matter,  and  gives 
the  raven  to  P  and  the  dove  to  J.  Kayser,  Wellhausen, 
Kuenen,  Dillmann,  and  others  assign  the  whole  to  J,  in 
which  they  were  preceded  by  the  eccentric  Ilgen.  The 
motive  which  at  present  inclines  the  majority  to  J,  ap- 
pears to  be  twofold.  Such  a  graphic  incident  is  thought 
to  befit  the  more  "  picturesque  "  narrator,  and  this  is  the 
most  striking  parallel  with  the  cuneiform  tablets,  with 
which  J  is  held  to  stand  in  the  closest  relation.  Both  an 
argument  and  an  inference  are  supplied  from  these  two 
points  of  view  of  a  somewhat  circular  character.  It  is  as- 
signed to  J  because  he  is  picturesque  and  allied  to  the 
tablets ;  and  being  so  assigned  proves  him  to  be  pictu- 
resque and  allied  to  the  tablets.  One  cannot  but  feel 
that  if  the  critics  had  anything  to  gain  by  so  doing,  they 
might  with  equal  ease  have  imputed  to  the  writer  of  this 
paragraph  an  alleged  characteristic  of  P,  and  said  that 
his  style  was  "  stereotyped,"  and  abounding  in  "  regular 
formulas  "  and  the  "  repetition  of  like  phrases,"  thus  : 
"  And  he  sent  forth  the  raven  "  (ver.  7)  ;  cf.  "  and  he 
6 


82  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

sent  forth  the  dove  "  (ver.  8) ;  "  and  he  stayed  yet  other 
seven  days  and  sent  forth  the  dove  "  (twice,  vs.  10,  12) ; 
"  waters  were  abated  from  off  the  face  of  the  ground  " 
(twice,  vs.  8,  11),  cf.  also  ver.  9 ;  "to  him  into  the  ark  " 
(twice,  ver.  9)  ;  "going  and  returning,"  (twice  (in  Heb.), 
vs.  3,  7),  cf.  ver.  6. 

The  drying  of  the  ground  is  likewise  stated  in  two 
successive  stages.  First  (ver.  13),  the  surface  was  so  far 
dried  that  the  water  had  disappeared.  Then  (ver.  14), 
the  earth  was  dry.  These  are,  as  before  stated,  divided 
by  the  critics  between  J  and  P. 

P  proceeds  to  tell  of  Noah's  leaving  the  ark  (vs.  15- 
19).  But  he  records  no  act  of  worship  or  thanksgiving 
for  this  great  deliverance.  Yet  he  had  spoken  of  Noah 
as  a  righteous  man,  who  walked  with  God  (vi.  9).  In 
fact,  throughout  the  entire  patriarchal  history  P  never 
mentions  an  altar  or  sacrifice  or  any  act  of  worship. 
These  are,  indeed,  spoken  of  repeatedly  in  the  sacred 
history ;  but  they  are  invariably  referred  to  other  docu- 
ments, never  to  P.  And  yet  P,  according  to  the  critics, 
is  the  priestly  writer,  who  is  especially  interested  in  rit- 
ual worship  and  in  ceremonial  matters.  It  is  he  who  re- 
cords the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  Tii.  3),  and  of  cir- 
cumcision (xvii.  10),  and  the  prohibition  of  eating  blood 
(ix.  4) ;  and  he  never  relates  anything  derogatory  to  the 
patriarchs,  but  always  exalts  them  as  model  men  of  God. 
Is  it  conceivable  that  he  should  have  omitted  to  mention 
that  Noah  devoutly  praised  God  for  his  merciful  inter- 
position on  his  behalf  ?  Surely  there  has  been  an  omis- 
sion here  ;  and  the  more  evidently  so,  as  a  sacrifice  is  so 
prominent  a  feature  in  the  Chaldean  account  of  the  del- 
uge. 

It  thus  appears  also  that  there  are  serious  chasms  in 
P's  account  likewise,  that  the  symmetry  of  the  narrative 
is  spoiled  in  repeated  instances  by  the  proposed  parti- 


THE    FLOOD    (ClI.    VI.    9-IX.    17)  83 

tion,  and  that  passages  are  rent  from  their  connection 
and  assigned  to  J,  which  are  indispensable  in  the  con- 
text in  which  they  stand. 

NO   SUPEEFLUOUS   REPETITIONS. 

It  is  further  claimed  that  there  are  repetitions  which 
betray  the  composite  character  of  the  narrative,  and  show 
that  it  has  been  made  np  by  combining  two  separate  ac- 
counts. But  this  is  a  mistake  ;  there  are  no  superfluous 
repetitions  to  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  We  are  pointed 
in  the  first  instance  to  the  opening  verses.  It  is  said 
that  vi.  5-7  contains  J's  account  of  the  wickedness  of 
man  and  of  the  Lord's  purpose  to  destroy  the  race  ;  then 
follows,  in  vs.  11-13,  P's  account  of  the  very  same  thing ; 
but  a  slight  consideration  of  the  circumstances  will  make 
it  appear  that  the  critics'  conclusion  is  altogether  unwar- 
ranted. The  title  (vi.  9),  "  These  are  the  generations  of 
Noah,"  marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  section  of  the  his- 
tory, and  indicates  its  subject  to  be  the  fortunes  of  Noah's 
family.  In  entering  upon  this  topic  the  writer  first  ex- 
plains the  situation  with  the  view  of  placing  distinctly 
before  the  minds  of  his  readers  at  the  outset  the  causes 
of  what  was  about  to  take  place.  He  commences  by 
stating  the  character  of  Noah  (ver.  9b  ^),  which  explains 
the  intimation  in  ver.  8  of  the  special  favor  sho-\vn  to  him. 
He  then  recapitulates  some  statements  previously  made, 
which  are  necessary  to  the  understanding  of  the  follow- 
ing narrative.  He  speaks  of  Noah's  three  sons  (ver.  10), 
though  they  had  been  named  in  identical  terms  in  v.  32, 
which  the  critics  likewise  refer  to  P ;  no  one  thinks  of 

'  Kayser  (p.  8)  says  :  "Noali  was  a  righteous  man  and  perfect,  in  his 
generations,"  belongs  to  J  (see  vii.  1)  ;  "Noah  walked  with  God  "  to  P, 
(V  21).  Other  critics  quietly  ignore  this  identity  of  expressions,  and 
give  the  entire  verse,  which  manifestly  belongs  together,  to  P. 


84  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

a  difference  of  writers  because  of  this  repetition.  He 
further  speaks  of  the  universal  corruption  (vs.  11,  12)  ; 
this  had  ah-eady  been  mentioned  at  the  close  of  the  pre- 
ceding section  (ver.  5)  as  a  sequence  from  facts  previously 
stated.^  But  it  lay  so  at  the  basis  of  Avhat  was  to  be  re- 
corded in  this  new  section  that  it  is  mentioned  here  again, 
And  there  is  no  more  reason  for  suspecting  a  diversity  of 
writers  than  there  is  in  ver.  10,  which  all  acknowledge  to 
be  by  the  same  writer  as  v.  32.  It  is  just  such  a  recapit- 
ulation as  any  writer  might  be  expected  to  make  under 
the  circumstances.  On  the  other  hand,  ver.  13  is  not  a 
repetition  of  the  statement  made  in  ver.  7,  but  is  an  ad- 
vance upon  it.  In  ver.  7  mention  is  made  of  the  Lokd's 
purpose  to  destroy  man ;  in  ver.  13  this  purpose  is  com- 
municated to  Noah,  which  is  quite  another  thing. 

In  vs.  18-20,  while  directing  Noah  to  build  the  ark. 
God  tells  him  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  to  be  made, 
and  that  he  was  to  take  with  him  into  it  some  of  every 
sjiecies  of  living  things  in  order  to  keep  them  alive. 
After  the  ark  had  been  built,  and  the  time  for  sending 
the  flood  drew  nigh,  the  Lord  bade  Noah  to  go  into  it 
with  his  family  and  vnth  some  of  every  species  of  ani- 
mals (vii.  1-3).  But  there  is  no  superfluous  repetition 
here.  Two  distinct  divine  communications  were  made 
at  different  times,  and  each  is  reported  in  its  proper 
place. 

The  critics,  however,  lay  great  stress  upon  the  fact  that 
the  entry  into  the  ark  is  twice  recorded ;  vs.  7-9  ~,  they 
tell  us,  is  J's  account,  and  vs.  13-16  that  of  P.  But  this, 
too,  is  a  mistake ;  there  is  nothing  here  requiring  the 

'  Noldeke  (p.  IG)  remarks  that  other  sections  (v.  1  ;  x.  1,  and  xi.  27) 
in  like  manner  begin  with  the  repetition  of  wliat  had  been  before 
stated. 

'  Schrader  and  Dillmann  give  vs.  8,  9,  to  E, ;  Noldeke  gives  vs.  7-9 
to  R  as  his  elaboration  of  the  originally  brief  words  of  the  Jehovist. 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.   VI.   9-IX.    17)  85 

supposition  of  distinct  documents.  It  has  been  before 
shown  that  vs.  7-9  cannot  by  critical  rules  be  referred  to 
J,  without  a  reconstruction  of  the  text  in  each  individual 
verse.  But  besides  this  it  is  to  be  noted  that  ver.  6  gives 
a  general  statement  of  Noah's  age  at  the  coming  of  the 
flood;  he  was  then  six  hundred  years  old.  In  ver.  11 
this  is  stated  again  with  more  particularity,  in  order  to 
indicate  the  precise  day  on  which  the  flood  began,  viz., 
the  six  hundredth  year  of  Noah's  life,  the  second  month, 
the  seventeenth  day  of  the  month.  The  critics  do  not 
find  this  repetition  incompatible  with  the  sameness  of 
the  writer ;  vs.  6  and  11  are  both  alike  referred  by  them 
to  P.  In  precisely  the  same  manner,  with  the  view  of 
exhibiting  the  precision  of  the  divine  arrangements,  the 
sacred  writer  points  out  the  fact  in  vs.  13-16  that  Noah 
and  all  his  company  entered  the  ark  on  the  self-same  day 
on  which  the  flood  broke  forth ;  and  the  emphasis  which 
he  puts  upon  this  thought  appears  from  the  particularity 
of  detail  and  the  iteration  in  these  verses.  Now  why 
should  this  repetition  for  this  evident  purpose  be  any 
more  suggestive  of  a  diversity  of  writers  than  the  like 
repetition  in  regard  to  Noah's  age  ? 

The  critics  are  embarrassed  here  by  their  own  hypoth- 
esis. Different  views  have  been  entertained  in  respect  to 
the  relation  of  J  and  P.  According  to  some  critics  J  and 
P  each  wrote  a  separate  and  independent  document,  and 
these,  after  circulating  singly  for  a  time,  were  at  length 
combined  by  a  redactor.  These  are  known  as  docu- 
mentary critics.  Others  have  held  that  J  did  not  write 
a  complete  document  of  his  own,  but  simply  edited  an 
enlarged  edition  of  P.  The  document  P  was  made  the 
basis,  to  which  J  simply  made  additions,  supplementing 
it  here  and  there  as  he  had  occasion.  These  are  known 
as  supplementary  critics. 

In  the  case  before  us  the  documentary  make  this  point 


86  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   NOAH 

against  the  supplementary  critics,  that  no  editor  in  sup- 
plementing a  pre-existing  work,  would  introduce  of  his 
own  motion  what  was  already  in  almost  identical  terms 
in  the  work  before  him.  Such  a  superfluous  repetition 
could  only  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  a  redactor 
was  combining  two  works,  for  each  of  which  he  had  a 
great  reverence,  so  that  he  was  reluctant  to  omit  any- 
thing that  either  of  them  contained.  Thus  it  came  to 
pass  that  after  copying  a  statement  from  one  of  his 
sources  he  finds  the  same  thing  stated  likewise  in  the 
other,  and  copies  it  also.  This  has  a  plausible  sound. 
It  certainly  silences  the  supplementary  critics.  But 
there  are  two  insuperable  difiiculties  in  the  way  of  ac- 
cepting tlie  solution  which  the  documentary  critics  offer. 
1.  Judged  by  their  own  critical  rules  the  compiler  has 
not  preserved  what  was  pecuHar  to  J  in  vs.  7-10,  but  has 
conformed  it  throughout  to  the  style  of  P.  2.  In  other 
cases  he  has  not  shown  a  similar  care  to  i3reserve  all  the 
contents  of  his  sources.  Why  has  he  not  given  a  dupli- 
cate account  of  the  building  of  the  ark,  or  of  the  exit 
from  it,  as  well  as  of  the  entry  into  it?  The  obvious 
reason  is  that  in  the  former  there  was  no  coincidence 
in  time  to  emphasize,  as  there  was  in  the  latter.  Hence 
the  emphatic  repetition  in  the  one,  whereas  there  was  no 
occasion  for  it  in  the  others. 

It  has  before  been  shown  that  the  statements  respect- 
ing the  rise  of  the  waters,  their  destructiveness,  and  their 
subsequent  fall  cannot  be  parcelled  between  difterent 
writers  ;  and  that  the  attempt  to  find  two  parallel  accounts 
of  these  particulars  by  J  and  by  P  is  not  successful.  The 
verses  and  clauses  which  are  given  to  J  cannot  be  sun- 
dered from  the  context  in  which  they  stand.  Moreover, 
the  description  of  successive  stages  is  not  identical  repe- 
tition, and  as  such  suggestive  of  distinct  documents. 
And  if  it  were,  four  statements  of  the  rise  of  the  waters, 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.   VI.    9-IX.    17)  87 

three  of  their  destructive  effects,  and  seven  of  their  fall, 
cannot  be  distributed  between  two  documents  without 
leaving  repetitions  in  each.  More  than  two  documents 
are  necessary,  if  each  repetition  is  indicative  of  a  sepa- 
rate writer.  The  critical  argument  is  in  this  case  plainly 
self -destructive. 

It  should  also  be  observed  that  like  repetitions  are 
found  in  other  cases  which  the  critics  quietly  ignore,  and 
never  think  of  tracing  to  a  diversity  of  documents.  Thus 
the  corruption  and  violence  prevailing  in  the  earth  is  stated 
four  times  in  as  many  successive  clauses  (vi.  11, 12) ;  the 
entry  of  all  living  things  into  the  ark  with  Noah  is  re- 
peated three  times  (vii.  14-16),  where  Dillmaun  remarks, 
"  It  is  as  though  the  author,  moved  by  the  momentous 
character  of  the  day,  could  not  do  enough  to  satisfy  him- 
self in  the  detailed  portraiture  of  the  transaction."  God's 
establishment  of  his  covenant  with  Noah  is  twice  stated, 
(ix.  9,  11) ;  and  the  bow  in  the  cloud  as  the  token  of  the 
covenant  is  mentioned  again  and  again  (ix.  12-17).  In 
all  these  cases  the  critics  recognize  but  one  writer.  So, 
too,  the  triple  mention  of  the  names  of  Noah's  sons  (v.  32  ; 
vi.  10 ;  X.  1)  is  given  to  P ;  the  foui'th  mention  of  the 
same  (ix.  18)  being  assigned  to  J.  A  rule  which  plays 
fast  and  loose  in  this  manner  at  the  pleasure  of  the  op- 
erator, is  a  very  insecure  dependence. 

It  has  also  been  claimed  that  Noah's  sacrifice  and  the 
Lord's  resolve  not  to  destroy  all  Kving  things  again  (viii. 
20-22),  are  parallel  to  God's  blessing  Noah,  and  his  cove- 
nant not  to  send  another  universal  flood  (ix.  1-17) ;  and 
that  the  former  is  the  account  of  J,  and  the  latter  that  of 
P  respecting  the  same  thing.  But  these  are  not  the  same  ; 
one  is  the  sequel  of  the  other ;  viii.  21,  22  states  the  di- 
vine purpose,  that  "  the  Lord  said  in  his  heart ; "  in  ix. 
1-17  this  purpose  is  made  known  to  Noah. 

The  examination  of   the  narrative  of   the  flood  thus 


88  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

shows  that  so  far  from  everything  being  duplicated, 
nothing  is  duplicated  from  first  to  last  except  the  entry 
into  the  ark,  and  that  for  a  special  reason  not  suggestive 
of  two  documents  but  excluding  them. 


THE  DIVINE  NAMES 

It  is  still  further  urged  that  the  alternation  of  divine 
names  in  successive  paragraphs  of  this  narrative  gives 
evidence  of  its  composite  character.  It  is  affirmed  that 
this  requires  the  assumption  of  two  different  writers,  who 
were  in  the  habit  of  using  different  terms  in  speaking  of 
the  Most  High.  One  (P)  always  spoke  of  him  as  " God" 
(Heb,,  Elohim) ;  the  other  (J)  as  Lord  (Heb.,  Jehovah), 
The  narrative,  as  we  possess  it,  has  been  made  up  from 
the  combination  of  the  accounts  in  these  two  documents ; 
and  hence  the  blending  of  these  two  names,  as  they  are 
here  found.  But  this  is  a  superficial  and  mechanical  ex- 
planation of  what  is  really  due  to  a  different  and  more 
satisfactory  cause. 

There  are  two  aspects,  under  which  the  flood  can  be 
contemplated,  and  two  points  of  view  from  which  its 
place  and  function  in  the  sacred  history  can  be  regarded. 
It  may  be  looked  upon  as  the  act  of  the  Creator,  destroy- 
ing the  work  of  his  hands  because  it  had  become  corrupt 
and  so  perverted  from  its  original  intent,  and  at  the  same 
time  providing  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  several  species 
of  living  things.  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  con- 
sidered in  its  relation  to  the  work  of  redemption.  The 
wickedness  of  man  threatened  to  put  an  end  to  the  scheme 
of  grace  and  salvation ;  in  order  to  prevent  his  merciful 
designs  from  being  thwarted  thus,  the  Most  High  re- 
solved to  destroy  the  ungodly  race,  and  rescue  the  one 
surviving  pious  family  to  be  the  seed  of  a  new  race, 
among  whom  true  religion  might  be  nui-tured  until  it 


THE   FLOOD    (CII,   VI.  9-IX.   17)  89 

should  ultimately  fill  the  whole  earth.  The  sacred  writer 
has  both  these  aspects  of  this  great  catastrophe  in 
miud,  and  he  suggests  them  to  his  readers  by  the  alter- 
nate use  of  the  divine  names.  When  he  has  regard  to 
the  divine  government  and  providential  care,  as  mani- 
fested in  it,  he  speaks  of  it  as  the  act  of  Elohim.  When 
he  has  regard  to  his  special  guardianship)  over  the  pious, 
or  to  aught  that  concerns  divine  worship,  he  uses  the 
sacred  name  Jehovah. 

Thus  it  is  Elohim  who  sees  with  displeasure  the  dis- 
order introduced  by  the  corruption  of  mankind,  and 
makes  known  his  purpose  to  destroy  them,  but  institutes 
measure^  for  preserving  the  various  species  of  animals 
by  means  of  an  ark  to  be  built  for  this  end  (vi.  9-22). 
It  is  Elohim  agreeably  to  whose  command  creatures  of 
both  sexes  went  in  unto  Noah  into  the  ark  (vii.  9,  16). 
It  is  Elohim  who  remembered  Noah  and  every  living 
thing  that  was  with  him  in  the  ark,  and  who  made  a  wind 
pass  over  the  earth  to  assuage  the  Avaters  (viii.  1).  It  is 
Elohim  who  bade  Noah  go  forth  of  the  ark,  and  bring 
forth  with  him  every  living  thing  that  they  may  mul- 
tiply upon  the  earth  (viii.  15-17).  It  is  Elohim  who 
blessed  Noah  and  his  sons,  as  he  had  blessed  man  at  his 
creation  (i.  28),  bidding  them  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply, 
and  replenish  the  earth  (ix.  1).  It  is  Elohim  who  estab- 
Hshed  his  covenant  with  Noah  and  with  every  living 
creature,  pledging  that  there  should  be  no  flood  in  future 
to  destroy  all  flesh  (ix.  8-17). 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  Jehovah  (E.  V.,  the  Lord),  in 
whose  eyes  Noah  found  grace  (vi.  8),  and  who  was  re- 
solved to  put  a  sudden  end  to  the  downward  progress  of 
growing  wickedness  which  infected  every  imagination  of 
the  thoughts  of  man's  heart  and  threatened  to  banish 
piety  from  the  earth  (vs.  5-7).  It  is  Jehovah  who  bade 
righteous   Noah  come   with  all  his  house  into  the  ark, 


90  THE   GENERATION'S   OF   NOAH 

and  take  with  bim  animals  fit  for  sacrifice  in  larger 
numbers  than  the  rest  (vii.  1-3).  It  is  Jebovab  who  sbut 
Noab  in,  after  be  bad  entered  tbe  ark  (ver.  16),  tbougb  in 
tbe  very  same  verse  it  is  Elobim  wbo  commanded  tbat 
tbe  beasts  of  botb  sexes  should  enter  in.  It  is  Jebovab 
to  whom  Noab  builds  an  altar  and  offers  sacrifice,  and 
who  graciously  accepts  the  offering  (vs.  20,  21). 

It  thus  appears  that  tbe  divine  names  are  discrimi- 
natingly employed  throughout  tbe  entire  narrative  ;  there 
are  no  superfluous  repetitions,  suggestive  of  a  combina- 
tion of  distinct  documents  ;  there  are  serious  gaps  and 
halting-places  in  each  of  tbe  accounts,  into  which  the 
critics  propose  to  divide  the  history  of  the  deluge  ;  and 
in  numerous  instances  tbe  partition  attempted  is  imprac- 
ticable because  it  would  sunder  what  is  plainly  indivis- 
ible. It  is  further  noteworthy  that  there  is  no  pretence 
of  basing  the  critical  partition  of  these  cbaj)ters  on  di- 
versity of  diction.  The  scattered  clauses  assigned  to  J. 
which  have  already  been  shown  to  be  inseparable  from 
their  contexts,  have  not  even  this  poor  pretext  in  their 
favor.  In  fact  there  is  scarcely  more  than  three  or  four 
words  or  phrases  in  all  that  is  attributed  to  J  in  tbe  entire 
narrative  of  the  deluge  which  is  claimed  elsewhere  as 
characteristic  of  tbat  document ;  while  there  are  several 
phrases  and  forms  of  speech,  as  has  been  already  pointed 
out,  that  are  elsewhere  held  to  be  characteristic  of  P,  not 
to  speak  of  the  word  "  create  "  (vi.  7),  which  in  cb.  i.  is 
made  a  mark  of  P  in  distinction  from  J. 


NO  DISCKEPANCIES 

Tbe  attempt  is  made  to  create  a  variance  between  vi. 
5  and  ver.  12  by  alleging  tbat  J  attributes  the  flood  to 
the  wickedness  of  man,  but  P  to  the  corruption  of  "  all 
flesh,"  meaning  thereby  tbe  entire  animal  creation  as  well 


THE  FLOOD  (CH.    VI.  9-IX,    17)  91 

as  man;  and  when  P  speaks  of  the  earth  being  filled 
with  violence  he  refers  not  merely  to  human  deeds  of 
violence  and  crime,  but  also  to  the  rapacity  and  ferocity 
of  beasts  which  prey  upon  weaker  animals  instead  of  feed- 
ing upon  the  herbage  allowed  them  at  their  creation  (i. 
30).  But  the  term  "all  flesh  "  has  a  wider  or  narrower 
meaning  as  determined  by  the  connection.  When  it  is 
said  (vii.  21)  that  "  all  flesh  died  "  in  the  flood,  men  and 
animals  are  both  intended.  But  vii.  15,  "  two  and  two  of 
all  flesh  went  in  unto  Noah  into  the  ark,"  has  reference 
to  animals  only.  And  in  such  phrases  as  "  God  of  the 
spirits  of  all  flesh  "  (Num.  xvi.  22  ;  xxvii.  16  ;  cf.  Jer.  xxxii. 
27)  ;  "  who  is  there  of  all  flesh  that  hath  heard  the  voice 
of  the  living  God?  "  (Deut.  v.  23,  E.  V.  26) ;  "  all  flesh  shall 
see  the  glory  of  the  Lord  "  (Isa.  xl.  5) ;  "I  will  pour  out 
my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh "  (Joel  iii.  1,  E.  V.  ii.  28)  ;  cf. 
also  Ps.  Ivi.  5  (4) ;  Ixv.  8  (2) ;  cxlv.  21 ;  Isa.  Ixvi.  16,  24  ; 
Ezek.  xxi.  10  (E.  V.  5)  ;  Zech.  ii.  13,  the  reference  is  to  all 
mankind.  This  is  also  evidently  the  case  in  Gen.  vi.  12, 
"  all  flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth ; "  for 
moral  character  and  responsibility  can  only  be  aflirmed 
of  man,  not  of  the  inferior  animals. 

It  has  before  been  shown  that  there  is  no  discrepancy 
between  the  general  direction  (vi.  19  P),  to  take  a  pair  of 
each  kind  of  animals  into  the  ark  in  order  to  preserve 
alive  the  various  species,  and  the  more  specific  require- 
ment, when  the  time  arrived  for  entering  the  ark,  that 
clean  beasts  should  be  taken  by  sevens  and  the  unclean 
by  twos  (vii.  2  J).  If  it  had  been  said  that  only  two 
should  be  taken  of  each  kind,  the  case  would  have  been 
different.  J  also  relapses  into  the  general  form  of  state- 
ment (vii.  9) ;  or  if  the  critics  prefer,  R  does  so,  which 
amounts  to  the  same  thing,  as  by  the  hypothesis  he  had 
J's  previous  statement  before  him.  There  is  no  contra- 
diction here  any  more  than  there  is  between  the  general 


92  THE   GENEKATIONS   OF   NOAH 

and  the  more  exact  statement  of  Noah's  age  in  vii.  6  and 
11. 

In  vii.  10  the  flood  came  seven  days,  not  after  Noah 
entered  the  ark,  but  after  the  announcement,  vs.  1-4 ;  so 
tliat  there  is  no  conflict  with  vii.  13. 

It  is  alleged  that  there  is  a  serious  variance  between 
J  and  P  in  resj^ect  to  the  duration  of  the  flood.  Ac- 
cording to  P  (vii.  11)  it  began  on  the  seventeenth  day 
of  the  second  month,  and  ended  on  the  twenty-seventh 
day  of  the  second  month  of  the  following  year  (viii.  13, 
14).  According  to  J  (vii.  12)  it  rained  forty  days,  at 
the  end  of  which  (viii.  6-12)  Noah  sent  forth  birds  at 
the  intervals  of  three  successive  periods  of  seven  days, 
whereupon  (ver.  13b)  the  face  of  the  ground  was  dried ; 
the  flood  only  lasted,  therefore,  sixty-one  days,  or,  if  the 
forty  days  of  viii.  6  are  additional  to  the  forty  of  vii.  12, 
it  lasted  one  hundred  and  one  days,  instead  of  a  year  and 
ten  days  as  reckoned  by  P. 

The  fallacy  of  all  this  is  obvious.  It  is  simply  pa- 
rading a  part  as  though  it  were  the  whole.  "  At  the  end 
of  forty  days  Noah  opened  the  window  of  the  ark  "  (viii. 
6).  Forty  days  from  what  ?  The  critics  are  in  doubt 
whether  to  reckon  from  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  the 
forty  days'  rain.  What,  then,  is  to  be  thought  of  the 
intelligence  of  R  in  compiling  this  narrative  ?  As  this 
verse  stands  it  is  not  possible  to  reckon  otherwise  than 
from  the  first  day  of  the  tenth  month  (viii.  5).  Adding 
to  this  the  three  periods  of  seven  days,  it  apj^ears  that 
the  dove  was  sent  out  for  the  last  time  on  the  first  day  of 
the  twelfth  month.  After  another  month  Noah  removes 
the  covering  of  the  ark,  and  in  a  month  and  twenty-seven 
days  more  he  leaves  the  ark  entirel}^  All  is  thus  in  per- 
fect harmony. 

The  inference  of  the  critics  is,  besides,  quite  unfounded 
upon  their  own  principles.     By  their  own  concession  J 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.    VI.  9-IX.   17)  93 

is  not  complete.  His  genealogy  from  Adam  to  Noah  is 
only  preserved  in  part.  His  account  of  building  the  ark 
and  of  Noah's  leaving  it  have  been  omitted,  R  not  judg- 
ing it  necessary  to  repeat  from  J  what  he  had  already 
inserted  from  P.  Whence,  then,  this  sudden  confidence 
that  no  numbers  originally  in  J  have  been  omitted,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  such  an  assumption  gives  to 
his  statements  a  meaning  that  they  cannot  now  have,  sets 
them  in  opposition  to  otherwise  uncontradicted  state- 
ments of  P,  and  convicts  R  of  incapacity  or  worse  ? 

Just  here  the  perplexity  of  the  critics  in  respect  to 
vii,  17a  is  instructive.  "The  flood  was  forty  days  upon 
the  earth,"  is  given  entire  by  Dillmaun  to  J,  by  Kuenen 
to  R,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  words  "  forty  days," 
by  Kautzsch  and  Socin  to  P  ;  also  by  Hupfeld  to  P  with- 
out exception,  only  he  insists  that  the  "  forty  days  "  must 
be  understood  difi^erently  from  J  in  vii.  4 ;  Budde  gives 
it  to  P,  but  strikes  the  "  forty  days  "  out  of  the  text,  and 
reads  "  the  flood  of  waters  was  upon  the  earth."  All  is 
with  the  design  of  bringing  J  and  P  into  conflict  regard- 
ing the  duration  of  the  flood ;  so  that  is  effected  they  are 
not  particular  about  the  mode  of  accomplishing  it. 

The  conjecture  that  still  another  estimate  of  the  dura- 
tion of  the  flood  is  intimated  in  vii.  24,  and  that  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  days  of  its  increase  imply  the  same 
length  of  time  for  its  decrease,  so  that  it  must  have 
lasted  just  three  hundred  days  (see  Dillmann,  "  Genesis," 
p.  130)  is  a  pure  figment  with  no  foundation  whatever 
in  the  Biblical  narrative.  The  statement  is  not  that  the 
flood  continued  to  increase  for  one  hundred  and  fifty 
days,  but  that  having  previously  reached  its  full  height 
it  continued  at  its  maximum  until  that  time,  reckoned 
from  its  beginning,  and  then  decreased  for  seven  months 
and  ten  days,  when  the  earth  was  dry. 


94  THE   GENERATIOlSrS   OF   NOAH 


DIFFERENCE   OF  DICTION 

It  is  further  contended,  however,  that  there  are  certain 
characteristics  peculiar  to  each  of  these  so-called  docu- 
ments, which  distinguish  them  from  one  another  in  dic- 
tion, style,  mode  of  conception,  and  range  of  ideas  ;  and 
that  these  are  so  marked  and  constant  as  to  prove  diver- 
sity of  origin.  These  are  most  fully  and  succinctly 
stated  by  Dillmann,^  who  has  enlarged  and  corrected  the 
collection  diligently  gathered  by  Knobel.  He  gives  the 
following  distinctive  marks  for  the  recognition  of  P  in 
chs.  vi.-ix. :  (1)  The  title,  vi.  9.  (2)  Beckoning  by  the 
years  of  Noah's  life.  (3)  The  exact  statements  of  time 
respecting  the  course  of  the  flood.  (4)  The  measure- 
ments of  the  ark.  (5)  Weaving  in  a  law,  ix.  1-7,  and  its 
referring  back  to  i.  27  seq.  (6)  The  covenant  and  its 
sign,  ix.  8  sqq.  (7)  Diflfuseness  and  constantly  recurring 
formulae.  (8)  The  antique  description  of  the  sources  of 
the  flood,  vii.  11 ;  viii.  2  ;  recalling  i.  6-8.  (9)  The 
image  of  God,  ix.  6.  (10)  The  mode  of  speaking  of 
Noah's  family,  vi.  18  ;  vii.  7,  13  ;  viii.  16,  18  (on  the 
contrary,  vii.  1).  (11)  nm-bs  vi.  12  seq.,  17,  19 ;  vii.  15  seq., 
21;  viii.  17;  ix.  11,  15-17.  (12)  nn|52l  nDT  vi.  19;  vii. 
9,  16.  (13)  DH^nnsTU^b  viii.  19.  {U)r(m  )i  vi.  22.  (15) 
nnni  nns  viii.'  17  ;'  ix.  1,  7.  (16)  n^na  D^pn  or  ]n3  vi.  18; 
ix.  d,  11  seq.,  17.  (17)  You  and  your  seed  after  you,  ix.  9. 
(18)  yia  vi.  17 ;  vii.  21.  (19)  n^npn  and  r,n\D  (not  hto) 
vi.  13,' 17  ;  ix.  11,  15.  (20)  T^bin'  vi.  10.  (21)  nbDs'vi. 
21 ;  ix.  3.  (22)  n^n  wild  beast,  vii.  14,  21 ;  viii.  1, 17,  19 ; 
ix.  2,  5.  (23)  I'^'Q  Vi.  20  ;  vii.  14.  (24)  DSy  self-same,  vii. 
13.  (25)  fntD  and  y'\n  vii.  21 ;  viii.  17  ;  ix.  7.  (26)  tolDT 
and  TC^n  vi.  20  ;  vii.  14,  21 ;  viii.  17,  19 ;  ix.  2  seq.  (see  vi. 
7  ;  vii.'  8,  23).  (27)  ia5^  liH-Q  vii.  19.  (28)  a  used  dis- 
tributively,  vii.  21 ;  viii.  17  ;  ix.  10,  15  seq. 

'  Commentary  oil  Genesis. 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.   VI.  9-IX.   17)  95 

This  certainly  has  the  appearance  of  a  very  formidable 
list.  But  such  lists  may  prove  very  delusive.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  no  piece  of  composition  can  be  so 
divided  that  precisely  the  same  words  and  phrases  and 
ideas  shall  occur  in  each  of  the  parts,  and  that  neither 
shall  contain  any  that  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  other. 
If  any  such  piece  should  be  divided  at  random,  and  an 
elaborate  and  exhaustive  search  be  instituted  to  discover 
what  there  was  in  one  of  the  parts  that  was  missing  in 
the  other,  and  vice  versa,  no  doubt  long  lists  could  be 
made  out  of  what  might  be  called  the  characteristic  pe- 
culiarities of  each  part.  Nevertheless,  these  would  not 
have  the  slightest  significance,  and  would  have  no  ten- 
dency to  prove  that  these  sundered  parts  ever  had  a  sepa- 
rate and  independent  existence  and  were  the  primal  sources 
from  which  the  composition  in  question  was  derived. 

More  especially  is  this  the  case  when  the  partition  is 
made  on  the  basis  of  certain  assumed  characteristic  dif- 
ferences. It  is  assumed  at  the  start,  we  may  suppose, 
that  a  given  production  is  a  composite  one,  formed  by 
the  combination  of  two  pre-existing  documents.  Two 
sections  respectively  assigned  to  these  documents  are 
then  compared,  and  the  resulting  differences  noted  as 
severally  characteristic  of  one  or  the  other.  The  docu- 
ments are  then  made  out  in  detail  by  the  persistent  ap- 
plication of  the  criteria  thus  furnished.  Every  para- 
graph, sentence,  or  clause,  in  which  any  of  the  one  class 
of  characteristics  is  to  be  found,  is  regularly  and  consist- 
ently assigned  to  the  one  document,  and  with  like  regu- 
larity'and  consistency  all,  in  which  any  of  the  other  class 
of  characteristics  appear,  is  referred  to  the  other  docu- 
ment, the  number  of  the  criteria  growing  as  the  work 
proceeds.  When  now  the  process  is  completed,  each 
document  will  be  found  to  have  the  assumed  series  of 
characteristics  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  was  through- 


96  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

out  constructed  by  the  critic  himself  upon  that  pattern. 
He  is  arguing  in  a  circle,  which  of  course  returns  upon 
itself.  He  proves  the  documents  by  the  criteria,  and 
the  criteria  by  the  documents  ;  and  these  match  as  far 
as  they  do  because  they  have  been  adjusted  to  one  an- 
other with  the  utmost  care.  But  the  correspondence 
may  be  factitious  after  all.  It  may  show  the  ingenuity 
of  the  operator,  without  establishing  the  objective  real- 
ity of  his  conclusions.  The  documents  which  he  fancies 
that  he  has  discovered  may  be  purely  a  creation  of  his 
own,  and  never  have  had  an  independent  existence. 

MARKS   OF   P 

We  shall  now  examine  the  alleged  marks  of  P  seriatim 
with  the  view  of  discovering  what  significance  is  to  be 
attached  to  them. 

1.  The  title  (vi.  9).  {a).  A  like  title,  "  These  are  the 
generations,"  etc.,  occurs  besides  in  Gen.  ii.  4;  v.  1 ;  x. 
1 ;  xi.  10,  27 ;  xxv,  12,  19  ;  xxxvi.  1,  9  ;  xxxvii.  2  ;  Num. 
iii.  1,  and  once  out  of  the  Pentateuch  in  imitation  of  the 
phrase  as  there  used. 

(6).  The  word  "  generations  "  rrnbn  occurs,  apart  from 
the  titles  just  cited.  Gen.  x.  32  ;  xxv.  13  ;  Ex.  vi.  16,  19; 
xxviii.  10  ;  Num.  i.  20-42,  and  out  of  the  Pentateuch, 
Euth  iv.  18  ;  1  Chron.  v.  7;  vii.  2,  4,  9;  viii.  28;  ix.  9, 
34 ;  xxvi.  31. 

These  titles  are  so  far  from  lending  any  support  to  the 
hypothesis  that  they  can  only  be  classed  as  belonging 
to  P  on  the  prior  assumption  of  the  truth  of  the  hypothe- 
sis. That  in  Gen.  ii.  4  is  assigned  to  P,  not  by  reason  of 
its  environment,  but  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  is 
the  title  of  a  J  section,  to  which  it  is  assumed  that  it  has 
been  transferred  from  a  former  imaginary  position  at  the 
beginning  of  ch.  i.,  for  which  it  is  not  suitable  and  where 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.    VI.  9-IX.    17)  97 

it  could  never  have  stood.  In  xxxvii.  2  it  introduces  a 
section  composed  of  alternate  paragraphs  of  J  and  E,  in 
which  there  is  not  a  single  sentence  from  P  until  xli.  4G, 
and  then  not  another  till  xlvi.  6.  In  xxv.  19  it  is  followed 
by  long  passages  from  J,  interspersed  with  paragraphs 
from  E,  and  with  scarcely  anything  from  P.  Ch.  xxxvi. 
9  stands  at  the  head  of  a  section  about  which  the  critics 
are  divided  ;  some  refer  it  to  P,  others  in  large  part  to  R 
or  to  JE.  The  natui'al  inference  would  seem  to  be  that 
these  titles,  prefixed  alike  to  J  and  to  P  sections,  were 
suggestive  of  the  common  authorship  of  those  sections, 
or  at  least  that  the  titles  proceeded  from  him  to  whom 
Genesis  owes  its  present  form,  be  he  author  or  com- 
piler. Hence  Kayser  ^  says,  "  The  formula  '  These  are  the 
generations,'  which  is  commonly  regarded  as  Elohistic, 
belongs  just  as  well  to  the  other  document."  And  again, 
"  This  formula,  with  which  the  history  of  Esau  or  of  the 
Esauids  (xxxvi.  9),  as  well  as  the  history  of  Jacob  (xxxvii. 
2)  begins,  is  not  exclusively  Elohistic.  The  Jehovist  uses 
it  here  as  in  xxv.  19,  in  order  to  commence  a  new  section 
after  the  death  of  a  patriarch."  And  the  other  passages, 
in  which  the  word  mbin  is  found,  look  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. Gen.  X.  32  occurs  at  the  close  of  what  is  consid- 
ered a  J  section  of  a  genealogy.  Ex.  vi.  16,  19  is  in  a 
genealogy  which  Kayser  assigns  to  R,  which  in  the 
judgment  of  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  does  not  belong  to 
P,  but  is  a  later  interpolation,  and  which  Dillmann  merely 
refers  to  P  on  the  general  ground  that  genealogies  as  a 
rule  are  to  be  so  referred ;  while  nevertheless  he  claims 
that  the  entire  context  has  been  seriously  manipulated. 
Gen.  xxv.  13  is  in  a  genealogy  which  is  referred  to  P  on 
the  same  general  ground,  but  is  embedded  in  a  J  context. 
It  would  seem,  consequently,  that  there  is  no  very  solid 
ground  for  the  claim  that  this  word  is  peculiar  to  P. 

'  Das  Vorexilische  Buch,  pp.  8,  28. 
7 


98  THE   GENEKATIOlSrS   OF   NOAH 

2.  "  Reckoning  by  the  years  of  Noah's  life." 

.  The  arbitrary  character  of  the  critical  rule  that  state- 
ments of  age  are  to  be  referred  to  P  appears  from  the 
fact  that  in  repeated  instances  this  is  done  in  defiance  of 
the  context.  Thus  Isaac's  age  at  his  marriage  and  at  the 
birth  of  his  children  is  cut  out  of  a  J  context  (xxv.  20, 
26)  ;  so  that  of  Joseph  when  feeding  the  flock  with  his 
brethren  (xxxvii.  2),  and  when  he  stood  before  Pharaoh 
(xli.  46),  and  the  length  of  time  that  Jacob  lived  in  Egypt 
and  his  age  at  his  death  (xlvii.  28)  are  all  severed  from  a 
foreign  context,  either  J  or  E.  Moreover,  the  age  of  Jo- 
seph (Gen.  1.  26),  of  Caleb  (Josh,  xiv.  7,  10),  and  of 
Joshua  (.Josh.  xxiv.  29)  is  by  common  critical  consent  at- 
tributed to  E. 

3.  "  The  exact  statements  of  time  respecting  the  course 
of  the  flood." 

{a)  P  reckons  one  hundred  and  fifty  days  until  the 
flood  began  to  subside  (vii.  24;  viii.  3).  But  time  is 
noted  with  similar  exactness  in  passages  referred  to  the 
other  documents.  Thus  in  J  seven  days  until  the  rain 
was  to  begin,  forty  days  that  it  was  to  continue  (vii.  4, 
10,  12) ;  after  forty  days  Noah  opened  the  window  of  the 
ark  (viii.  6) ;  after  seven  days  he  sent  forth  a  dove  (vs. 
10,  12)  ;  three  months  (xxxviii.  24) ;  in  E  twelve  years 
(Gen.  xiv.  4,  5)  (so  Dillmann) ;  seven  years  (xxix.  20,  27, 
30)  ;  twenty,  fourteen,  and  six  years  (xxxi.  38,  41)  ;  two 
years  (xli.  1) ;  seven  years  (xli.  48,  54) ;  two  and  five 
years  (xiv.  6). 

(h)  P  notes  the  month  and  the  day  which  marked 
certain  stages  of  the  flood  (vii.  11 ;  viii.  4,  5,  13,  14). 
But  nothing  sufficiently  momentous  to  call  for  such  nota- 
tion occurs  in  the  rest  of  Genesis,  whether  in  JE  or  in 
P  sections.  And  in  the  remainder  of  the  Hexateuch  it  is 
limited  to  two  things,  viz.,  the  annual  sacred  seasons  as 
described  in  detail  in  the  ritual  law,  and  for  that  reason 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.   VI.  9-IX.   17)  99 

assigned  to  P,  and  the  most  signal  occurrences  in  the 
march  of  Israel  from  Egypt  to  Canaan.  Thus  the  month 
and  day  of  their  leaving  Egypt  are  indicated  (Num. 
xxxiii.  3) ;  of  the  first  gift  of  manna  (Ex.  xvi.  1) ;  of  the 
arrival  at  and  departure  from  Sinai  (Ex.  xix.  1 ;  Num.  x. 
11) ;  of  setting  up  the  sacred  tabernacle  (Ex.  xl.  2,  17) ; 
of  numbering  the  people  and  organizing  the  host  (Num. 
i.  1,  18) ;  of  the  return  to  Kadesh  in  the  last  year  of  the 
wandering  (Num.  xx.  1) ;  of  the  death  of  Aaron  (Num. 
xxxiii.  38)  ;  of  Moses's  final  exposition  of  the  law  (Deut. 
i.  3) ;  and  of  the  passage  of  the  Jordan  just  when  the  pre- 
dicted term  of  wandering  was  complete  (Josh.  iv.  19). 
These  are  all  assigned  to  P  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Ex. 
xix.  1 ;  Num.  xx.  1 ;  Deut.  i.  3 ;  Josh.  iv.  19  are  not  in  a 
P  context ;  yet  they  are  severed  from  their  connection 
and  attributed  to  P  because  of  the  prior  assumption  that 
"  he  alone  reckons  by  months  and  days." 

4.  "  The  measurements  of  the  ark." 

There  is  but  one  other  structure  of  which  measures  are 
given  in  the  Pentateuch,  viz.,  the  tabernacle  and  its  ves- 
sels. And  the  reason  why  such  detailed  statements  are 
made  respecting  them  is  not  because  P  had  a  fancy  for 
recording  measures,  but  because  these  structures  were 
built  by  divine  direction  and  on  a  divine  plan  which  was 
minutely  followed.  And  this  is  not  the  peculiarity  of  a 
particular  writer,  for  the  author  of  Kings  and  the  prophet 
Ezekiel  detail  in  like  manner  the  measures  of  the  temple. 

5.  "  Weaving  in  a  law,  ix.  1-7,  and  its  referring  back 
to  i.  27  seq." 

But  the  same  thing  occurs  in  passages  assigned  to  the 
other  so-called  documents  ;  thus  in  J,  the  law  of  mar- 
riage is  woven  into  ii.  23,  24 ;  that  of  levirate  marriage, 
xxxviii.  8 ;  intermarriage  with  Canaanites  disapproved, 
xxiv.  3,  and  the  institution  of  sacrifice,  ch.  iv.,  viii.  20,  21  ; 
in  E  the  payment  of  tithes,  xiv.  20   (referred  to  E  by 


100  THE   GENERATIOl^S   OF  NOAH 

Dillmann),  xxviii.  22.  And  if  the  reference  of  ix.  6  to  i. 
27  links  it  to  P,  the  reference  of  xxvii.  45  J  to  ix.  6  links 
it  equally  to  J,  and  is  thus  suggestive  of  the  common  ori- 
gin of  what  the  critics  consider  separate  documents. 
6.  "  The  covenant  and  its  sign  (ix.  8  sqq)." 
Three  covenants  with  their  appointed  signs  are  spoken 
of  in  the  Old  Testament,  viz.:  The  covenant  with  Noah 
and  the  rainbow  as  its  sign,  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
and  his  seed  and  circumcision  as  its  sign  (xvii.  10,  11), 
and  the  covenant  with  Israel  and  the  sabbath  as  its  sign 
(Ex.  xxxi.  13-17).  These  are  all  referred  to  P,  and  no 
sections  of  P  but  these  three  make  mention  of  a  cove- 
nant sign.  If  now  the  absence  of  this  expression  from  all 
the  rest  of  the  P  sections  does  not  imj^ly  difference  of 
authorship,  why  should  such  a  significance  be  attributed 
to  its  absence  from  the  J  sections  ?  But  in  fact  both  the 
name  and  the  thing  are  found  in  sections  attributed  to  J. 
Thus  Gen.  xv.  18,  Jehovah  made  a  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham granting  him  the  land  of  Canaan ;  and  as  he  asked 
for  something  (ver.  8)  whereby  he  might  know  that  he 
should  inherit  it,  a  symbol  of  the  divine  presence,  fire 
and  smoke,  passed  between  the  pieces  of  the  slaughtered 
victims,  as  was  customary  for  contracting  parties  among 
men  (Jer.  xxxiy.  18,  19).  The  word  "  sign  "  does  not  oc- 
cur in  the  passage,  but  Dillmann  ("  Commentary"  in  loc.) 
correctly  calls  this  "  the  sign  by  which  the  covenant  en- 
gagement was  concluded."  In  Ex.  iii.  12  E  God  gives 
Moses  a  sign  of  his  divine  commission  to  deliver  Israel, 
In  Ex.  iv.  J  he  gives  him  a  series  of  signs  to  confirm  the 
faith  of  the  people  in  the  same.  The  critics  assign  to  P, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  refractory  clauses,  Ex.  xxxi. 
12-17,  which  makes  the  sabbath  the  sign  of  God's  cov- 
enant with  Israel.  And  they  avow  as  one  of  their  chief 
reasons  for  doing  so  (Dillmann  in  loc),  that  P  must  have 
recorded  the  sign  of  the  Mosaic  covenant  as  he  did  those 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.   VI.   9-IX.    17)  101 

of  the  covenants  with  Noah  and  Abraham.  And  yet  they 
attribute  the  entire  account  of  the  contracting  of  the 
Mosaic  covenant  (Ex.  xxiv.  1-11)  to  JE,  thus  separating 
what  manifestly  belongs  together.  How  can  P  report  the 
sign  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  if  he  has  said  nothing  of 
such  a  covenant  being  formed  ? 

7.  "  Diffuseuess  and  constantly  recurring  formulae." 
But  the  emphatic  iteration  of  the  historian,  who  would 

impress  his  readers  with  the  magnitude  of  the  world- 
wide desolation  wrought  by  the  flood,  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  the  aimless  diffuseness  of  a  wordy  writer. 
The  enlargement  upon  special  features  and  the  repeti- 
tions are  due  to  the  vastness  of  the  theme,  not  to  need- 
less verbosity.  Thus  Delitzsch  commenting  upon  vii. 
17-20  says  :  "  The  description  is  a  model  of  majestic 
simplicity,  of  exalted  beauty  with  no  artificial  expedients. 
.  .  .  The  tautologies  of  the  account,  as  it  lies  before 
us,  picture  the  frightful  monotomy  of  the  illimitable 
watery  surface,  and  the  refuge  floating  secui'ely  above  it, 
though  encompassed  by  the  terrors  of  death."  And 
Dillmann  says  of  vii.  16,  in  which  the  author  repeats  for 
the  third  time  the  entry  into  the  ark,  "  It  is  as  if  the 
author,  moved  by  the  momentous  character  of  the  day, 
could  not  do  enough  in  the  way  of  detailed  portraiture  of 
the  event."     These  surely  are  not  unmeaning  platitudes. 

8.  "  The  antique  description  of  the  sources  of  the 
flood  (vii.  11,  viii.  2),  reminding  one  of  i.  6-8." 

The  expression  "  windows  of  heaven  "  occurs  twice  in 
the  account  of  the  flood,  and  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch.  In  both  passages  it  is  associated  with  rain,  which 
is  only  sundered  from  it  by  the  arbitrary  partition  of  the 
critics ;  and  the  form  of  the  verb  used  in  both  implies 
that  the  rain  was  consequent  upon  the  opening  of  those 
windows,  and  the  stoppage  of  the  rain  upon  closing  them. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  suggestion  of  two  diflerent  con- 


102  THE   GETS'ERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

ceptions,  wlietber  the  windows  of  heaven  be  interpreted 
as  literal  sluices  through  which  the  waters  of  a  supernal 
ocean  poured,  or  as  a  figurative  representation  of  delug- 
ing rains  proceeding  from  the  clouds,  which  are  spoken 
of  as  waters  above  the  firmament.  And  that  waters  from 
the  great  deep  were  united  with  torrents  from  the  sky  in 
producing  the  flood  can  be  no  ground  of  literary  parti- 
tion, while  it  is  in  exact  accord  with  geologic  phenomena. 

9.  "The  image  of  God  (ix.  6)." 

This  expression  is  here  used  with  explicit  allusion  to  i. 
26,  27,  where  it  occurs  in  the  account  of  the  creation  of 
man ;  and  it  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament. 
This  cannot  surely  be  urged  as  a  characteristic  of  the 
writer. 

10.  "  The  mode  of  speaking  of  Noah's  family,  vi,  18 ; 
vii.  7,  13 ;  viii.  16,  18,  as  opposed  to  vii.  1." 

But  why  should  diversity  of  authorship  be  inferred  be- 
cause vi.  18  has  "  Thou  and  thy  sons,  aud  thy  Avife,  and 
thy  sons'  wives  with  thee,"  and  vii.  1,  "  Thou  and  all  thy 
house,"  any  more  than  from  xlv.  10,  "  Thou  and  thy 
children,  and  thy  children's  children,  and  thy  flocks,  and 
thy  herds,  and  all  that  thou  hast,"  while  ver.  11  has 
"  Thou  and  thy  house,  and  all  that  thou  hast,"  whicli 
plainly  belong  together,  and  are  by  the  critics  commonly 
assigned  to  E.  Wellhausen,  indeed,  ascribes  xlv.  10, 
with  its  detailed  enumeration,  to  J,  thus  precisely  re- 
versing the  characteristic  brevity  imputed  to  J  in  vii.  1. 
Moreover,  the  detailed  statement  of  Noah's  family  occurs 
(vii.  7)  in  a  passage  alleged  to  contain  J's  account  of  the 
entry  into  the  ark,  and  in  connection  with  expressions 
claimed  to  be  characteristic  of  J,  "  waters  of  the  flood," 
"  clean  beasts  and  beasts  that  are  not  clean  ;  "  so  that 
the  critics  find  it  necessary  to  resort  to  the  evasion  that 
the  text  has  been  manipulated  by  R,  who  substituted  the 
present  reading  for  the  presumed  original,  "Noah  and 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.   VI.  9-IX.    17)  103 

his  house/'  And  if  slight  variations  in  the  form  of  ex- 
pression are  to  be  made  the  pretext  for  assuming  a  di- 
versity of  writers,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  vii.  13  is  pe- 
cuHar  in  giving  the  names  of  Noah's  sons  and  the  number 
of  their  wives,  and  viii.  16  in  mentioning  the  wife  before 
the  sons.  Must  these  verses  be  referred  to  a  distinct 
author  on  this  account  ? 

11.  "\Tt3n-b3  all  flesh  (vi.  12  seq.,  17,  19  ;  vii.  15  seq., 
21;  viii.'i7;^ix.  11,  15-17). 

This  expression  occurs  thirteen  times  in  the  passages 
just  recited  in  the  account  of  the  flood,  to  indicate  the 
universality  of  corruption  and  death  and  the  measures 
for  preserving  the  various  species  of  living  things.  As 
there  was  no  occasion  to  use  it  elsewhere  in  Genesis,  it 
occui'S  besides  neither  in  P  nor  in  J  sections.  It  is 
found  three  times  in  Lev.  xvii,  14,  "  blood  the  life  of  all 
flesh,"  which  Dillmann  says  ("  Commentary,"  p.  535)  is 
a  mixed  passage,  and  he  adds  that  "  all  flesh  "  is  no  sure 
proof  of  P.  It  further  occurs  in  Num.  xvi.  22  ;  xxvii.  16, 
"  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh  ;  "  and  in  a  law  of  the 
consecration  of  the  first-born  of  all  animals  (Num.  xviii. 
15),  and  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch.  J  passages  offer 
no  substitute  for  it,  and  do  not  employ  it  for  the  simple 
reason  that  they  have  no  occasion  to  express  the  same 
idea.  It  is  further  found  repeatedly  in  other  books  of 
the  Bible,  so  that  it  is  no  peculiar  possession  of  P. 

12.  nnp]^   -IDT  male  and  female  (vi.  19  ;  vii.  9,  16). 
These  words  can  only  be  expected  where  there  is  some 

reason  for  referring  to  the  distinction  of  sex.  They  are 
found  together  (i.  27 ;  v.  2)  where  the  creation  of  man  is 
spoken  of,  and  (vi.  19 ;  vii.  3,  9,  16)  in  the  measures  for 
the  preservation  of  the  various  species  at  the  time  of  the 
flood,  but  nowhere  else  in  Genesis.  They  are  also  found 
together  in  the  ritual  laws  respecting  sacrifice  (Lev.  iii. 
1,  6) ;  childbirth  (Lev.  xii.  7) ;  uncleanness  (Lev.  xv.  33 ; 


104  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

Num.  V.  3) ;  vows  (Lev.  xxvii.  3-7) ;  and  nowhere  else  in 
the  Hexateuch  except  Deut.  iv.  16  referring  to  objects 
of  idolatrous  worship.  And  it  is  almost  exclusively  in 
ritual  connections  that  the  words  indicative  of  sex  are 
used  at  all,  even  separately.  Thus  male  occurs  in  Gene- 
sis only  in  relation  to  circumcision  (Gen.  xvii.  10,  12,  14, 
23 ;  xxxiv.  15,  22,  24,  25) ;  and  besides  in  a  like  connec- 
tion in  Ex.  xii.  48,  P ;  Josh.  v.  4,  R.  It  is  further  found  in 
the  Hexateuch  in  relation  to  sacrifice  (Ex.  xii.  5  ;  Lev.  i. 
3,  10 ;  iv.  23  ;  xxii.  19) ;  hallowing  the  first-born  (Ex. 
xiii.  12,  15,  J ;  Deut.  xv.  19,  D)  ;  directions  concerning 
the  priests  (Lev.  vi.  11  (E.  V.,  18),  22  (E.  V.,  29) ;  vii. 
6  ;  Num.  xviii.  10)  ;  childbirth  (Lev.  xii.  2) ;  copulation 
(Lev.  xviii.  22 ;  xx.  13,  J,  so  Dillmann ;  Num.  xxxi.  17, 
18,  35) ;  the  census  (Num.  i.  2,  20,  22  ;  ch.  iii.;  xxvi.  62  ; 
Josh.  xvii.  2,  JE,  except  only  the  word  males,  so  Dill- 
mann) ;  and  war  (Num.  xxxi.  7,  17).  Female  occurs  sep- 
arately in  connection  with  sacrifice  (Lev.  iv.  28,  32 ;  v. 
6) ;  childbirth  (Lev.  xii.  5) ;  and  war  (Num.  xxxi.  15). 
As  the  creation,  flood  (for  the  most  part),  and  ritual  law 
are  assigned  to  P,  it  is  not  surprising  that  nearly  all  the 
allusions  to  sex  are  in  the  sections  and  paragraphs  at- 
tributed to  P.  And  yet  in  the  limited  references  which 
J  is  supposed  to  make  to  matters  that  admit  of  an  allu- 
sion to  sex,  the  word  7nale  finds  entrance  there  also.  It 
is  alleged  that  J  uses  a  different  phrase,  ir\p55l  ©"^ij!  man 
and  his  loife  (vii.  2),  instead  of  male  and  female.  Never- 
theless, male  and  female  likewise  occur  (vii.  3,  9)  in  para- 
graphs assigned  to  J.  The  critics  say  that  these  words 
were  inserted  by  R,  the  only  evidence  of  which  is  that 
they  are  at  variance  with  critical  assumptions.  And 
why  R  should  have  been  concerned  to  insert  them  here, 
and  not  in  vii.  2,  does  not  appear. 

13.  Drr^nhsT!;^!?  according  to  their  families  (viii.  19.) 
This  particular  form  of  expression  occurs  once  of  the 


THE   FLOOD   (OH.    VI.  9-IX.   17)  105 

various  species  of  animals  that  came  forth  from  the  ark. 
With  that  exception  it  is  limited  to  genealogies,  viz.,  of 
the  sons  of  Noah  (Gen.  x.  5,  20,  31)  ;  of  Esau  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  40) ;  and  of  the  Levites  (Ex.  vi.  17,  25) ;  the  cen- 
sus of  the  tribes  (Num.  i.-iv.,  xxvi.) ;  and  the  division  of 
Canaan  (Num.  xxxiii.  54  ;  Josh,  xiii.,  sqq).  As  these  are 
for  the  most  part  given  to  P  by  rule,  the  word  is  chiefly 
found  in  P  sections  as  a  matter  of  course.  Yet  it  is 
classed  as  belonging  to  P  in  x.  20,  31,  though  the  pre- 
ceding genealogy  to  which  it  relates  is  given  to  J.  The 
word  itself  is  found  in  J  (Gen.  xii.  3 ;  xxviii.  14  ;  Josh.  vi. 
23,  JE) ;  and  with  the  same  preposition,  "  according  to 
your  families  "  (Ex.  xii.  21,  J) ;  "  according  to  his  fami- 
lies "  (Num.  xi.  10,  JE). 

14.  niriy  1^   so  did  he  (vi.  22). 

This  is  part  of  an  emphatic  declaration  that  the  divine 
directions  were  punctually  obeyed.  Such  statements  are 
mostly  found  in  connection  with  the  ritual,  and  naturally 
have  their  place  in  P,  to  which  ritual  passages  are  regu- 
larly assigned.  In  Ex.  xii.  28  it  is  preceded  and  followed 
by  a  J  context,  with  the  former  of  which  it  is  intimately 
united,  to  which  it  evidently  refers,  and  from  which  its 
meaning  is  derived.  And  yet  it  is  torn  from  this  con- 
nection and  linked  mth  a  distant  P  paragraph  solely  and 
avoAvedly  because  it  contains  the  formula  in  question.  It 
occurs  but  once  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  where  it  describes 
the  exactness  with  which  Noah  heeded  the  injunctions 
given  him.  The  expression  in  vii.  5  J  is  less  full,  but  this 
is  no  indication  that  it  is  from  a  different  source.  The 
emphatic  formula  connected  with  the  general  statement 
in  Ex.  xxxix.  32  is  preceded,  and  that  in  Ex.  xl.  16  is 
followed,  by  numerous  particular  statements  with  a 
briefer  formula,  but  no  one  suspects  a  difference  of  au- 
thorship on  this  account. 

15.  rail  rrvD  be  fruitful  and  rmdtiply  (viii.  17;  ix.  1,  7). 


106  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   NOAH 

This  plirase  occurs  ten  times  in  Genesis  and  once  in 
Exodus,  and  in  all  of  tliem  is  referred  to  P.  This  looks 
like  a  strong  case  at  first  sight,  but  all  its  seeming 
strength  is  dissipated  upon  examination.  The  phrase  is 
an  emphatic  combination  designed  to  express  exuberant 
fertility  ;  and  its  meaning  is  repeatedly  heightened  by  the 
addition  of  other  synonymous  words,  or  of  intensifying 
adverbs.  1  It  is  used  in  the  Pentateuch  of  three  things, 
and  of  these  only.  1.  The  blessing  of  fruitfulness  pro- 
nounced upon  animals  and  men  at  their  creation  (Gen.  i. 
22,  28)  and  after  the  flood  (viii.  17  ;  ix.  1,  7).  2.  The  prom- 
ise to  the  patriarchs  of  the  multiplication  of  their  descend- 
ants. 3.  The  actual  multiplication  of  the  children  of  Israel 
in  Egypt  (Gen.  xlvii.  27 ;  Ex.  i.  7).  Since  the  entire  account 
of  the  creation  and  almost  all  of  the  account  of  the  flood 
are  given  to  P,  the  blessings  then  pronounced  take  the 
same  direction  as  a  matter  of  course.  Of  the  two  state- 
ments of  the  multiplication  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  Gen. 
xlvii.  27  stands  in  a  J  context,  and  Ex.  i.  7  in  an  E  con- 
text ;  and  both  are  sundered  from  their  proper  connection 
and  referred  to  P  principally  on  account  of  the  j)hrase 
in  question. 

In  the  blessing  upon  Abraham  and  his  descendants  in 
Gen.  xvii.,  these  two  verbs  are  first  used  separately — - 
"  multiply,"  ver.  2,  "  make  fruitful,"  ver.  6,  and  then  both 
are  combined  in  ver.  20.  This  climactic  promise  of  off- 
spring to  Abraham  after  long  years  of  waiting  and  when 
every  natural  expectation  had  vanished,  was  confirmed 
by  the  announcement  that  it  came  from  the  Almighty 
God  (ver.  1),  who  was  able  to  fulfil  what  nature  could 

'  Gen.  i.  32,  28  ;  ix.  1.     isb>31  n::m  IIS- 

viii.  17.     13-n  i-iET     .     .     .     is'n^ai. 

ix.  7.    la-Ti    .    .    .    -|2-in  ia-n  1-lB- 
xlvii.  27.    ij4>2  >i::-i>iT  insii. 
Ex.  i.  7.    ns^Ta  ns^^n  i^ois^'ii  in-i-i-!  iiri:rjii  Tic- 


THE   FLOOD   (CII.   VI.  0-IX.   17)  lOt 

not  accomplish.!  -jijis  promise  was  repeated  with  ex- 
plicit allusion  to  this  occasion  by  Isaac  to  Jacob,  xxviii. 
3,  by  God  himself  to  Jacob,  xxxv.  11,  by  Jacob  to  Jo- 
seph, xlviii.  3,  4.  In  all  these  cases  the  emphatic  words 
of  the  original  promise,  "  Almighty  God,"  "  be  fruitful," 
"  multiply,"  are  repeated  together.  These  are  uniformly 
assigned  to  P,  not  because  of  the  connection  in  which 
they  stand,  but  because  of  the  critical  assumption  that 
these  words  are  characteristic  of  P,  and  must  always  be 
attributed  to  him.  These  comprise  all  the  instances  in 
the  Hexateuch,  in  which  "  be  fruitful "  and  "  multiply  " 
occur  together,  except  Lev.  xxvi.  9,  which  Driver  assigns 
to  another  than  P,  and  Dillmaun  gives  to  J. 

16.    n''"ia  O'lpn  or  "jn:,  establish  or  ordain  a  covenant 

(vi.  18 ;  ix.  9,  11  seq.,  17). 

These  expressions  are  said  to  be  characteristic  of  P, 
while  J  habitually  uses  instead  iT^na  nns,  conclude  a  cove- 
nant. The  fact  is  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  signifi- 
cation of  these  terms,  which  should  be  noted,  and  which 
is  the  true  and  sufficient  explanation  of  their  usage,  with- 
out the  need  of  having  recourse  to  the  proclivities  of  dis- 
tinct writers.  The  first  two  expressions  are  used  exclu- 
sively of  God  as  instituting  covenants  with  men  ;  establish 
(lit.  "cause  to  stand  ")  indicates  the  permanence  and  sta- 
bility of  the  arrangement  divinely  made  ;  ordain  (lit. 
"  give  " ),  suggests  its  divine  appointment  or  bestowment. 
These  are  applied  to  two  covenants  granted  in  perpetu- 
ity, that  to  Noah  {establish,  vi.  8  ;  ix.  9, 11,  17  ;  ordain,  E. 
V,  "make,"  ix.  12)  and  to  Abraham  {establish,  xvii.  7, 
19,  21 ;  Ex.  vi.  4 ;  ordain,  E.  V.  "  make,"  Gen.  xvii.  2)  ; 
and  ordain,  E.  V.  "  give,"  is  once  besides  applied  to  the 
covenant  of  a  pei-petual  priesthood  granted  to  Phinehas 

»  Gen.  xvii.  1,  2.    ns<?a  ns^Taa  "^mx  nsns^i    •    •    •    ^i^a  "b^  '^as- 
ver.  6.    i5t?a  "istTsn  TjEiH  '^msm- 
ver.  20.    i5<?3  nH?a3  inx  irTinim  ins  "irTi-ism- 


108  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

(Num.  XXV.  12).  Conclude  (lit.  "cut,"  E.  V.  "make") 
according  to  its  original  signification  alludes  to  the  sac- 
rificial rites  attending  the  ratification  of  a  covenant,  and 
the  cutting  of  the  victim  asunder  for  the  contracting  par- 
ties to  pass  between  the  separated  pieces  (Jer.  xxxiv.  18, 
19).  It  properly  refers,  therefore,  to  the  act  of  conclud- 
ing a  covenant,  with  predominant  allusion,  in  some  in- 
stances at  least,  to  the  accompanying  ceremonies.  It  is 
accordingly  used— 

a.  Of  covenants  between  men ;  thus  between  Abraham 
and  Abimelech  (Gen.  xxi.  27,  32  E),  Isaac  and  Abime- 
lech  (xxvi.  28  J),  Laban  and  Jacob  (xxxi.  44  E),  Israel  and 
Canaauites  (Ex.  xxiii.  32  E ;  xxxiv.  12, 15  J ;  Deut.  vii.  2  D ; 
Josh.  ix.  6  sqq.  E),  Joshua  and  Israel  (Josh.  xxiv.  25  E). 

h.  Of  the  covenants  of  God  with  men,  when  the  attention 
is  directed  to  the  ratification  rather  than  to  the  perpetu- 
ity of  the  covenant.  It  occurs  once  of  God's  covenant 
with  Abraham  on  the  occasion  of  its  formal  ratification 
in  condescension  to  the  customs  of  men,  when  a  symbol 
of  the  Divine  Being,  by  whom  the  engagement  was  made, 
passed  between  the  parts  of  the  slaughtered  victims  (Gen. 
XV.  18  J).  But  when  the  climax  was  reached  and  the  faith 
of  childless  Abraham  had  been  sufiiciently  tried,  the 
covenant  conveying  the  land  of  Canaan  was  more  explic- 
itly unfolded  as  a  covenant,  in  which  the  Almighty  God 
pledged  himself  to  be  a  God  unto  him  and  to  his  seed  ;  a 
covenant  that  was  not  merely  entered  into,  but  declared 
to  be  everlasting,  and  the  stronger  word  establish  is  hence- 
forth used  in  relation  to  it  (Gen.  xvii.  7).  Conclude  (\.\i. 
"  cut ")  is  invariably  used  of  God's  covenant  with  Israel, 
ratified  by  sacrifice  (Ex.  xxiv.  8  J),  and  solemnly  renewed 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  10,  27  J ;  Deut.  iv.  23  ;  v.  2,  3 ;  ix.  9 ;  xxviii. 
69  (E.  V.  xxix.  1) ;  xxix.  11, 13,  24  (E.  V.  vs.  12,  14,  25)  ; 
xxxi.  16).  Establish  is  never  used  in  speaking  of  this 
covenant  with  Israel,  as  of  that  with  Abraham,  because 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.    YI.  9-IX.   17)  109 

the  element  of  perpetuity  and  inviolability  was  wanting. 
It  was  liable  to  be  broken.  It  was  once  actually  ruptured 
by  the  crime  of  the  golden  calf  and  again  by  their  rebel- 
lion, when  the  spies  brought  an  evil  report  of  the  prom- 
ised land  and  they  were  in  consequence  condemned  to 
die  in  the  wilderness.  The  people  were  ever  afresh  re- 
minded that  its  persistence  was  conditioned  on  their  own 
fidelity.  Only  once  in  the  Pentateuch  is  its  perpetuation 
set  before  them  as  a  blessing  of  the  future ;  ^  if  they  will 
walk  in  the  Lord's  statutes,  he  will  establish  his  covenant 
with  them  (Lev.  xxvi.  3,  9  J,  Dillm.).  It  is  quite  likely, 
however,  that  the  phrase  is  here  used  in  the  secondary 
sense  of  performing  or  fulfilling,  as  it  is  in  relation  to  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  in  Deut.  viii.  18.  The  occurrence 
of  what  is  claimed  as  a  P  phrase  in  J  and  D  shows  that  it 
is  not  the  peculiar  property  of  any  one  of  the  so-called 
Hexateuchal  documents.  And  the  superficial  exegesis 
which  finds  here  only  an  unmeaning  difference  of  usage 
in  different  writers  overlooks  the  i^rofound  significance 
which  underlies  the  constant  employment  of  these  sev- 
eral terms. 

17.  "  You  and  your  seed  after  you  "  (ix.  9). 

This  or  the  like  phrase,  with  a  simple  change  of  the 
pronoun,  is  uniformly  ascribed  to  P.  It  occurs  in  the 
promise  to  Noah  (ix.  9)  ;  Abraham  (xvii.  7  bis,  8,  9,  10, 
19) ;  Jacob  (xxxv.  12)  ;  repeated  by  Jacob  to  Joseph  (xlviii. 
4) ;  the  injunction  to  Aaron  (Ex.  xxviii.  43),  and  the  prom- 
ise to  Phinehas  (Num.  xxv.  13).  But  the  expression  is  not 
uniform  even  in  passages  assigned  to  P,  e.g.,  "  to  thee  and 
to  thy  seed  with  thee  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  4  ;  Num.  xviii.  19) ; 
"  to  him  and  to  his  seed  throughout  their  generations  "  (Ex. 
XXX.  21).     Why  then  should  a  slight  additional  variation 

'  And  once  besides  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ezek.  xvi,  60,  62),  where, 
however,  it  is  based  not  on  the  fidelity  of  the  people,  but  on  the  pre- 
venient  grace  of  God. 


110  THE   GKS"EEATIO>'S    OF   NOAH 

in  three  additional  passages  be  thought  to  indicate  a  dif- 
ferent author?  viz.,  "  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  for  ever "' 
(^Gen.  xiii-  15  J)  ;  "  unto  thee  and  unto  thy  seed  "  (xxvi.  3 
E. ;  xxTiii.  13  J),  especially  as  one  author  in  Deuteronomy 
uses  all  these  phrases;  "unto  them  and  to  their  seed 
after  them  "  (i.  8)  ;  "  unto  them  and  to  their  seed  "  (^xi. 
9j  ;  "  thee  and  thy  seed  forever '"  i^xxNTii.  46 ). 

18.  T'i  die^  expire,  for  which  J  is  said  to  use  n*T3  (vi. 
17 ;  Yii."-21). 

This  word  is  only  found  in  poetry  except  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  where  it  is  an  emphatic  word,  only  used  of  the 
death  of  venerated  patriarchs  or  of  great  catastrophes. 
It  occurs  twice  in  relation  to  those  that  perished  in  the 
flood  (^vi.  17  ;  viL  21 » ;  also  of  those  who  were  cut  off  by 
divine  judgment  for  the  rebellion  of  Korah  (Xum.  xrsii. 
27,  28,  E.  T.  vs.  12, 13  ;  xx.  3  bis  >,  or  the  ti-espass  of  Achan 
(Josh.  xxii.  20 1.  It  is  used  in  connection  with  rr2  died, 
of  the  death  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xxv.  8),  Ishmael  (ver.  17), 
Isaac  (xxxv.  29\  and  with  the  equivalent  phrase,  '"  was 
gathered  to  his  people,"  of  Jacob  ( xlix.  33 ) ;  also  of  Aaron 
(Num.  XX.  29),  where  the  preceding  verse  has  r*";. 

The  critics  improperly  simder  Gen.  vii.  22,  which  h:is 
r*";,  from  its  connection  with  ver.  21,  which  has  j"3,  as- 
signing the  former  for  this  reason  to  J  and  the  latter  to 
P  ;  idthough  ver.  22  directly  continues  ver.  21,  and  is  a 
comprehensive  restatement  in  brief,  added  with  the  view 
of  giving  sti-onger  expression  to  the  thought.  Xum.  xx. 
3  b  is  cut  out  of  an  E  connection,  and  referred  to  P  on  ac- 
count of  this  word  r-i,  though  the  similar  passage,  Xtmi. 
xiv.  37,  shows  that  it  belongs  where  it  stands.  This 
word  could  not  be  expected  in  the  passages  assigned 
to  J,  since  they  record  no  death  in  all  the  Hexateuch 
except  those  of  Haran  i^Gen.  xi.  2S»,  the  wife  of  Judah 
(xxxviii.  12),  and  a  king  of  Egypt  i  Ex.  ii.  23)  ;  in  all 
which  the  word  ""2  is  appropriately  used.     The  passages 


THE  FLOOD  (OH.    VI.  9-IX.   17)  111 

assigned  to  P  in  likp  manner  use  ni'a  of  tlie  antediluvi- 
ans (Gen.  v.),  Terali  (xi.  32),  Sarali  (xxiii.  2),  the  kings  of 
Edom  (xxx"vi.  33-39  so  Dillmann),  Nadab  and  Abiliu  (Lev. 
X.  2),  and  several  times  besides  as  an  emphatic  addition 
to  yii.  There  is  in  all  this  no  difference  of  usage  what- 
ever, and  certainly  nothing  to  suggest  diversity  of  author- 
ship. 

19.  JT^nOn  and  tin®  destroy,  not  nrra  hlot  out,  J  (vi. 
13,  17  ;  ix.^  11, 15).   "  ' 

What  is  here  claimed  as  a  P  word  occurs  but  once  in 
P  outside  of  the  account  of  the  flood  (Gen.  xix.  29) ; 
while  it  occurs  repeatedly  in  J  (Piel  form,  Gen.  xiii.  10 ; 
xix.  13  ;  xxxviii,  9 ;  Ex,  xxxii.  7  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  5) ;  and  in 
E  (Piel,  Ex.  xxi.  26  ;  Num.  xxxii.  15  ;  Josh,  xxii,  33),  in 
J  (Hiphil,  Gen,  xviii.  28,  31,  32  ;  xix.  13, 14 ;  Ex.  xii.  23). 
And  the  alleged  J  word  Tvrvn  occm'S  four  times  in  the 
naiTative  of  the  flood  (vi.  7 ;  vii,  4,  23  bis) ;  and  five  times 
besides  in  the  Hexateuch,  twice  in  J  (Ex,  xxxii.  32,  33) ; 
twice  in  E  (Ex.  xvii.  1-4) ;  and  once  in  P  (Num.  v.  23). 
The  writer  is  led  to  use  nnO  in  vi.  13,  17  because  of  the 
twofold  signification  of  the  word,  which  may  have  respect 
to  character  or  condition  and  may  mean  "  to  coiTupt "  or 
"to  destroy."  All  flesh  had  corrupted  their  way,  where- 
fore God  was  resolved  to  destroy  them.  In  vii.  23  nrra, 
though  referred  to  J,  is  in  connection  with  the  enumera- 
tion of  "  man,  beast,  creeping  tiling,  and  fowl  of  heaven," 
which  is  reckoned  a  characteristic  of  P,  and  can  only  be 
accounted  for  by  the  assumption  that  it  has  been  inserted 
byK 

20.  Tbin  beget  (vi.  10),  for  which  J  is  said  to  use  lb\ 
As  is  remarked  by  Dillmann  ("  Commentary  on  Gen.,"  v. 

3),  T^bin,  said  of  the  father,  belongs  to  greater  precision 
of  style.  Hence  this  is  uniformly  used  in  the  direct  line 
of  the  genealogies  leading  to  the  chosen  race,  which  are 
drawn  up  with  special  fulness  and  formality  (Gen.  v.;  vi. 


112  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

10  ;  xi.  10  sqq.;  xxv.  19 ;  Num.  xxvi.  29,  58).  And  nb^  is 
as  uniformly  used  of  the  side  lines,  thus  iv.  18  (in  the 
line  of  Cain),  x.  8,  13,  15,  21,  26  (line  of  Ham,  and  that 
of  Sliem  outside  of  the  chosen  race),  xxii.  23  (Bethuel), 
xxv.  3  (Keturah).  The  only  aj^parent  exceptions  are 
not  really  such  ;  in  x.  24  Arpachshad,  Shelah,  Eber  head 
a  divergent  line  proceeding  with  Joktan  (cf,  xi.  12-17). 
In  xi.  27  Haran  begat  (T^bin)  Lot,  but  this  is  included  in 
the  genealogy  with  Abraham,  just  as  (xi.  26)  Terah  begat 
(libin)  three  sons,  and  Noah  (v.  32  ;  vi.  10)  begat  (liblH) 
three  sons,  these  being  included  in  a  genealogy  of  the 
direct  line.  In  xvii.  20  the  promise  that  Ishmael  shall 
beget  (T^bli)  twelve  princes  is  not  in  a  genealogy,  and 
besides,  it  is  part  of  a  promise  to  Abraham.  The  varia- 
tion, which  the  critics  attribute  to  distinct  writers,  is  sim- 
ply the  carrying  out  of  a  consistent  and  uniform  plan  by 
the  same  writer.  Besides,  it  is  only  by  critical  legerde- 
main that  lb''  is  restricted  to  J.  Gen.  xxii.  23  is  referred 
to  J  notwithstanding  the  allusion  by  P  in  xxv.  20,  which 
makes  it  necessary  to  assume  that  P  had  stated  the  same 
thing  in  some  other  passage  now  lost.  This  carries  with 
it  xxii.  20,  whose  allusion  to  xi.  29  requires  the  latter  to 
be  torn  from  its  connection  and  referred  to  J.  And  in 
xxv.  3  'ibi  alternates  with  i;m^  which  is  made  a  criterion 
of  P  in  ch.  X.  ;  comp.  also  xlvi.  9  sqq.  ;  Ex.  vi.  15  sqq. 

21.  nbp55  eaihuj  (E.  Y.  food,  vi.  21  ;  ix.  3). 

Delitzscii  (Commentary  on  Gen.,  vi.  21)  says,  "bbiib  to 
eat,  and  bDS'ab  for  food"  and  quotes  with  approval  from 
Driver,  "a  thing  is  given  bbi^b  on  a  particular  occasion, 
it  is  given  nbDXb  for  a  continuance."  It  is  said  that  J 
uses  bDSi'a  as  its  equivalent ;  but  bDii'a  and  nbpS?  occur 
together  in  Gen.  vi.  21  P,  where  the  difference  is  plainly 
shown ;  bDi513  denotes  that  which  is  eaten,  nbpJ5  the  act  of 
eating ;  nbDS  occurs  seven  times  in  the  Hexateuch.     In 

O    *  T    :     T 

each  instance  some  particular  article  of  food  is  prescribed 


THE   FLOOD   (CII.    YI.  9-IX.    17)  113 

for  constant  eating ;  and  these  are  the  only  passages  in 
which  this  is  done.  In  Gen.  i.  29,  30,  to  man  and  beast 
at  the  creation  ;  vi.  21  to  Noah  and  those  that  were  with 
him  in  the  ark  during  the  flood ;  ix.  3  to  man  after  the 
flood ;  Ex.  xvi.  15  to  Israel  manna  during  their  abode  in 
the  wilderness  ;  Lev.  xi.  39  to  Israel  animal  food  allowed 
by  the  law ;  xxv.  6  to  man  and  beast  during  the  sabbat- 
ical year. 

As  all  these  verses  are  assigned  to  P,  and  these  com- 
prise all  the  passages  of  this  description,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  nbDS  does  not  occur  in  J.  But  some  nice 
critical  work  is  required  to  effect  this.  Ex.  xvi.  15  has 
to  be  split  in  two ;  its  first  clause  is  said  to  belong  to  J, 
but  its  last  clause  is  attributed  to  P  because  of  this  very 
word  (so  Dillmann).  Kayser  ("  Das  Vorexilische  Buch," 
p.  76)  refers  Lev.  xxv.  1-7  to  another  than  P ;  Kuenen 
("  Hexateuch,"  p.  286)  refers  it  to  P',  who  is  distinguished 
from  P,  or  as  he  prefers  to  call  hira,  V,  the  author  of 
"  the  historico-legislative  work  extending  from  the  cre- 
ation to  the  settlement  in  Canaan  "  (p.  288). 

22.  T\^ri  wild  beast  (vii.  14,  21  ;  viii.  1,  17,  19 ;  ix.  2,  5). 

There  is  no  difference  in  this  between  the  passages  re- 
spectively assigned  to  the  so-called  documents,  rrn 
beast  is  distinguished  from  TTdTiz  cattle  in  P  (i.  24,  25 ; 
vii.  14,  21 ;  viii.  1 ;  ix.  10),  but  so  it  is  in  J  (ii.  20).  In 
i.  30 ;  viii.  19 ;  ix.  2,  5  P,  it  is  used  in  a  more  compre- 
hensive sense  and  includes  domestic  animals  precisely  as 
it  does  in  ii.  19  J.  In  vi.  20  P  JTans  cattle  is  used  in 
a  like  comprehensive  sense  and  embraces  all  quadrupeds 
as  in  vii.  2  J.  In  the  rest  of  Genesis  and  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch, while  tT^n  beast  occurs  in  the  sense  of  wild  beasts 
in  Gen.  xxxvii.  20,  33  JE,  Ex.  xxiii.  29  E,  Deut.  vii.  22 
D,  it  is  nowhere  used  in  this  sense  in  P,  to  which  it  is 
conceded  that  Lev.  xvii.  13 ;  xxv.  7  ;  xxvi.  6,  22,  do  not 
properly  belong ;  and  in  Num.  xxxv.  3  P,  where  beasts 
8 


114  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   NOAH 

are  distinguislied  from  cattle,  it  is  nevertlieless  plain  tliat 
domesticated  animals  are  meant. 

23.  )^)2  hind  (vi.  20  ;  vii.  14). 

This  word  is  only  used  when  there  is  occasion  to  refer 
to  various  species  of  living  things,  as  in  the  account  of 
the  creation  (Gen.  i.,  ten  times),  and  of  the  preservation 
of  animals  in  the  ark  (vi.  20,  four  times  ;  vii.  14,  four 
times),  and  in  the  law  respecting  clean  and  unclean  ani- 
mals (Lev.  xi.,  nine  times;  Deut.  xiv.,  four  times).  It 
occurs  but  once  besides  in  the  entire  Old  Testament 
(Ezek.  xlvii.  10),  where  reference  is  made  to  the  various 
species  of  fish.  As  the  creation,  the  flood  (in  large  part), 
and  the  ritual  law  are  assigned  to  P,  and  there  is  no  oc- 
casion to  use  the  word  elsewhere,  it  cannot  be  expected 
in  passages  attributed  to  J;  not  even  in  vii.  2,  3,  8, 
where  attention  is  drawn  to  the  distinction  maintained 
between  clean  and  unclean  rather  than  the  variety  of 
species  preserved,  which  is  sufficiently  insisted  upon  vi. 
20  and  vii.  14. 

24.  DSy  self-same  (vii.  13). 

This  is  an  emphatic  form  of  speech,  which  was  but 
sparingly  used,  and  limited  to  important  epochs  whose 
exact  time  is  thus  signalized.  It  marks  two  momentous 
days  in  the  history,  that  on  which  Noah  entered  into  the 
ark  (Gen.  vii.  13),  and  that  on  which  Moses  the  leader 
and  legislator  of  Israel  went  up  Mount  Nebo  to  die 
(Deut.  xxxii.  48).  With  these  exceptions  it  occurs  mainly 
in  ritual  connections.  It  is  used  twice  in  connection  with 
the  original  institution  of  circumcision  in  the  family  of 
Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  23,  26);  three  times  in  connection 
with  the  institution  of  the  passover  on  the  day  that  the 
Lord  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  17,  41,  51) ; 
and  five  times  in  Lev.  xxiii.,  the  chapter  ordaining  the 
sacred  festivals,  to  mark  severally  the  day  on  which  the 
sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  was   presented  in   the  passover 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.    VI.  9-IX.    17)  115 

week  (ver.  14),  which  is  emphasized  afresh  on  the  ob- 
servance of  the  first  passover  in  Canaan  (Josh.  v.  11) ; 
also  the  day  on  which  the  two  wave  loaves  were  brought 
at  the  feast  of  weeks  (ver,  21) ;  and  with  triple  repeti- 
tion the  great  day  of  atonement  (vs.  28-30).  Since  ritual 
passages  are  regularly  assigned  to  P,  and  the  two  em- 
phatic moments  in  the  history  calling  for  the  use  of  this 
expression  have  likewise  been  given  to  him,  it  might  not 
seem  surprising  if  it  had  been  absolutely  limited  to  P. 
And  yet  it  is  found  once  in  an  admitted  JE  section 
(Josh.  X.  27),  showing  that  it  can  have  place  in  these  sec- 
tions as  well  as  others,  if  there  is  occasion  for  its  em- 
ployment. 

25.  yyo  creep  or  swmnn,  and  "j^"!®  creeping  or  sivarming 
things  (vii.  21 ;  viii.  17  ;  ix.  7). 

'^ytb  creeping  things  occurs  among  other  species  of  ani- 
mals at  the  creation  (i.  20),  in  the  flood  (vii.  21),  and  in 
the  ritual  law  as  a  source  of  defilement  (Lev.  v.  2 ;  xxii. 
5),  or  prohibited  as  food  (Lev.  xi.,  ten  times  ;  Deut.  xiv. 
19) ;  and  it  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  verb  y-ilD  is  used  with  its  cognate  noun  at  the 
creation  (i.  20,  21),  and  flood  (vii.  21),  and  in  the  law  of 
unclean  meats  (Lev.  xi.  29,  41,  42,  43,  46)  ;  and  in  the 
sense  of  swarming  or  great  fertility  in  the  blessings  pro- 
nounced upon  animals  and  men  after  the  flood  (viii.  17  ; 
ix,  7)  ;  the  immense  multiplication  of  the  childi'en  of  Is- 
rael in  Egypt  (Ex.  i.  7)  ;  and  the  production  of  countless 
frogs  (Ex.  vii.  28,  E.  V.  viii.  3,  repeated  Ps.  cv.  30)  ; 
and  it  is  used  but  once  besides  in  the  entire  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  the  creation,  flood,  and  ritual  law  it  is  given 
to  P  as  a  matter  of  course  ;  but  it  occurs  in  J  in  Ex.  vii. 
28  ;  and  in  Ex.  i.  7  it  is  only  saved  for  P  by  cutting  it 
out  of  an  E  connection. 

26.  te'a'l  creep)  and  ioa"!  creeping  thing. 

These  words  occur  in  the  account  of  the  creation  (i. 


116  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

21,  24,  25,  26,  28,  30) ;  and  the  flood  (vi.  20  ;  vii.  14,  21, 
23  ;  viii.  17,  19  ;  ix.  2,  3)  P  ;  also  vi.  7  ;  vii.  8,  23,  in  a  J 
connection ;  in  the  ritual  law  respecting  clean  and  un- 
clean beasts  (Lev.  xi.  44,  46  P  ;  xx.  25  J)  (so  Dillmann)  ; 
and  in  the  prohibition  of  making  an  image  of  anything 
for  worship  (Deut.  iv.  18) ;  and  in  but  three  passages  be- 
sides in  the  Old  Testament  (Ps.  Ixix.  35  ;  civ.  20  ;  Ezek. 
xxxviii.  20).  Their  signification  limits  their  occurrence 
to  a  class  of  passages  that  are  mostly  assigned  to  P, 
though  the  noun  is  likewise  found  in  D,  and  both  noun 
and  verb  are  only  excluded  from  J  by  critical  legerde- 
main. 

27.  1^12  1^)2  exceedingly  (vii.  19). 

This  duplicated  intensive  adverb  is  referred  to  P  also 
(Ex.  i.  7 ;  Num.  xiv.  7),  and  with  a  preposition  prefixed 
(Gen.  xvii.  2,  6,  20).  But  it  is  admitted  to  belong  to  J 
(Gen.  XXX.  43). 

28.  a  used  distributively  (vii.  21 ;  viii.  17 ;  ix.  10,  15 
seq.). 

But  it  occurs  in  JE  likewise  (Ex.  x.  15). 

It  appears  from  the  above  examination  of  these  words 
and  phrases  that  they  are  for  the  most  part  found  in  the 
other  so-called  documents  as  well  as  in  P ;  when  they  are 
limited  to  P  or  preponderate  there,  it  is  due  not  to  the 
writer's  peculiarity,  but  to  the  natui-e  of  the  subject,  and 
in  many  cases  to  critical  artifice. 

MARKS   OF   J 

The  following  are  alleged  to  be  indications  of  J  : 

1.  "  Distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  beasts  (vii.  2,  8), 

mention  of  altar  and  sacrifice  "  (viii.   20,  21 ;  comp.  iv. 

3,4). 

For  the  reason  given  under  Ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No. 

11,  it  was  as  Jehovah  chiefly  that  God  was  worshipped,  that 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.    VI.  9-IX.    17)  117 

prayer  was  addressed  to  him,  and  offerings  made  to  him. 
Hence  it  is  ahnost  exclusively  in  Jehovah  sections  that 
mention  is  made  of  altars  and  sacrifices ;  and  the  dis- 
tinction of  clean  and  unclean  beasts  here  made  had  rela- 
tion to  sacrifice. 

The  notion  of  the  critics  that,  according  to  P,  sacrifice 
was  first  introduced  by  Moses  at  Sinai,  is  utterly  prepos- 
terous and  altogether  unwarranted.  It  is  preposterous 
to  suppose  that  the  pious  patriarchs,  who  were  honored 
with  special  divine  communications  and  were  in  favor 
with  God,  engaged  in  no  acts  of  worship.  And  it  is 
wholly  without  warrant,  for  there  is  no  suggestion  of  any 
such  idea  in  the  paragraphs  assigned  to  P.  This  is  one 
of  those  perverse  conclusions  which  are  drawn  from  the 
absolute  severance  of  what  belongs  together,  and  can 
only  be  properly  understood  in  combination.  The  prev- 
alent absence  of  allusion  to  sacrifice  in  passages  where 
God  is  spoken  of  as  Elohim  simply  arises  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Jehovah  is  the  proper  name  to  use  in 
such  a  connection. 

2.  "  Prominence  given  to  the  inherent  sinfulness  of 
men"  (viii.  21). 

Jehovah's  gracious  revelation  has  for  its  object  the  re- 
covery of  men  from  sin  and  their  restoration  to  the  di- 
vine favor.  Now,  since  the  disease  and  the  remedy  go 
together,  it  is  quite  appropriate  that  human  sin  should 
be  chiefly  portrayed  in  Jehovah  sections. 

3.  imCSI  ©"^it  «  man  and  his  toife,  applied  to  beasts,  "  a 
male  and  his  female  "  (vii.  2),  used  instead  of  "  male  and 
female."     See  above,  Marks  of  P,  No.  12. 

As  these  terms  are  nowhere  else  applied  to  the  lower 
animals  in  J,  it  is  not  strange  that  they  are  not  so  ap- 
plied in  P  sections.  But  a  fairly  parallel  case  occurs  in 
Ex.  xxvi.  3,  5,  6,  17  P,  where  terms  strictly  denoting 
human  beings  receive  a  wider  application,  curtains  and 


118  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   NOAH 

tenons  being  said  to  be  coupled,  "  a  woman  to  her  sis- 
ter," i.e.,  one  to  another,  as  it  is  in  Ex.  xxxvi.  10,  12,  13, 
22.  Moreover,  in  Gen.  viii.  19  rinsiB'a  is  used  to  denote 
species  in  animals,  while  y^'Q  is  always  used  in  this  sense 
elsewhere.  Yet  both  are  alike  referred  to  P  by  the  crit- 
ics. With  what  consistency,  then,  can  a  difference  of 
writers  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  iniSNl  TU'^i?  is  used 
in  one  verse  (vii.  2)  instead  of  nnpSI  IDT  ? 

4.  D'^'a'^b  in  days  or  at  the  completion  of  days  (vii.  4, 10). 
This  expression  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch 

in  this  sense  ;  but  the  preposition  is  similarly  used  (xvii. 
21  P  ;  see  DiUmann  on  Gen.  iii.  8,  to  which  he  refers 
vii.  4  as  a  parallel). 

5.  lab'bx  at  or  unto  his  heart  (vi.  6 ;  viii.  21). 
Nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch. 

6.  nin?a  because  of  (viii.  21). 

This  occurs  only  in  narrative  passages,  viz.,  15  times  in 
Genesis,  7  times  in  the  first  twenty  chapters  of  Exodus, 
and  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch.  It  is  3  times  at- 
tributed to  II  (Ex.  ix.  14,  16  bis)  ;  and  with  this  excep- 
tion the  passages  in  which  it  is  found  are  divided  be- 
tween J  and  E,  to  whom  the  great  bulk  of  the  narrative 
in  the  Hexateuch  is  ascribed. 

7.  "in'bs  every  living  thing  (viii.  21 ;  iii.  20),  contrary 
to  vi.  19  P,  "^nn'bs  all  the  living  things. 

These  Avords  do  not  occur  together  again  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch, whether  with  the  article  or  without  it.  The  inser- 
tion or  omission  of  the  article  in  such  a  phrase  is  a  very 
slender  ground  on  which  to  base  the  assertion  of  a  dif- 
ference of  writers,  especially  as  its  insertion  in  vi.  19  ap- 
pears to  be  due  to  the  qualifying  expression  that  follows, 
"  all  the  living  things  of  all  flesh." 

8.  JlSSp  2vas  overspread  (ix.  19). 

Dillmann  says  that  P  writes  TiB?  (x.  5,  32) ;  and  then 
he  annuls  the  force  of  his  remark  by  adding,  "  not  quite 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.    VI.  9-IX.    17)  119 

in  the  same  sense."     If  the  sense  is  not  the  same,  why 
should  not  the  word  be  different  ? 

Dillmann  further  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  differ- 
ent expressions  are  used  for  the  same  thing  in  different 
parts  of  the  narrative  of  the  flood.     Thus  : 

9.  P,  in  vi.  16,  speaks  of  nns  a  light ;  but  J  (viii.  6)  of 
p^n  a  window  in  the  ark. 

There  is  some  obscurity  in  the  description  of  the  for- 
mer which  makes  its  precise  construction  doubtful. 
Dillmann  thinks  that  it  was  an  opening  a  cubit  wide,  ex- 
tending the  entire  length  of  all  the  four  sides  of  the  ark 
just  beneath  the  roof,  for  the  admission  of  light  and  air, 
and  only  interrupted  by  the  beams  which  supported  the 
roof.  The  window  was  a  latticed  opening,  whose  shape 
and  dimensions  are  not  given.  There  is  nothing  to  for- 
bid its  exact  correspondence  and  identity  with  the  open- 
ing before  mentioned.  And  there  is  nothing  strange  in 
the  use  of  one  term  to  describe  it  when  considered  sim- 
ply as  intended  for  the  admission  of  light,  and  another 
term  when  reference  is  made  to  the  lattice  which  Noah 
had  occasion  to  unfasten. 

10.  D'lp^  living  substance  (vii.  4,  23). 

This  is  found  but  once  besides  in  the  Old  Testament 
(Deut.  xi.  6).  In  both  the  former  passages  it  is  given  to 
J,  notwithstanding  the  mixed  state  of  the  text,  as  the 
critics  regard  it,  in  ver.  23.  It  there  stands  in  combina- 
tion with  "  man,  cattle,  creeping  things,  and  fowl  of  the 
heaven,"  and  "  who  were  with  him,"  both  which  are  ac- 
counted marks  of  P. 

11.  bj?  lightened  or  abated  (viii.  8,  11). 

As  this  word  is  nowhere  else  used  in  a  like  sense  by  J 
it  is  not  strange  that  it  does  not  occur  in  P.  And  as  two 
different  words  are  employed  (viii.  1,  3)  to  express  a  sim- 
ilar thought,  both  being  referred  by  the  critics  to  the 
same  writer,  why  should  the  use  of  a  third  word  bearing 


120  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

an  analogous   sense  compel  us  to  think   of  a  different 
writer  altogether  ? 

12.  n;>n  (Piel)  keep  alive  (vii.  3)  J,  while  (vi.  19,  20)  P 
has  n;nn  (Hiphil). 

But  this  can  be  no  indication  of  a  diversity  of  writers, 
for  both  forms  occur  repeatedly  in  passages  assigned 
to  J  elsewhere ;  thus  Piel,  Gen.  xii.  12  ;  xix.  32,  34 ; 
Hiphil,-  xix.  19  ;  xlvii.  25.  Both  occur  in  the  same  con- 
nection (Num.  xxxi.  15,  18j  and  are  referred  to  the  same 
writer.  The  Hiphil  is  but  once  again  referred  to  P 
(Josh.  ix.  20),  and  the  Piel,  which  occurs  in  the  same 
connection  (ver.  15),  is  only  given  to  another  by  a  crit- 
ical dissection  of  the  verse.  The  Piel  and  Hiphil  of  this 
verb  are  used  indiscriminately  as  those  of  nniD  are,  which 
are  both  given  to  P ;  see  above,  Marks  of  P,  No.  19. 

13.  bl3TQn  I'D  loaters  of  the  flood  (vii.  7,  10 ;  not  so  vi. 

17). 

The  attempt  to  create  a  distinction  between  the  so- 
called  documents  in  the  mode  of  speaking  of  the  flood  is 
not  successful.  When  the  flood  is  first  mentioned  the 
unusual  word  b^att  is  defined  by  the  added  phrase 
"  waters  upon  the  earth  "  (vi.  17 ;  vii.  6  P).  We  then 
read  (vii.  7,  10  J)  of  "  waters  of  the  flood,"  and  the  same 
in  ix.  11  P.  Then  (vii.  17  J)  of  "  the  flood "  simply, 
and  so  in  ix.  15,  28  P. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  so-called  characteristics  of  J 
are  no  characteristics  at  all.  They  are  for  the  most  part 
words  or  phrases  of  rare  occurrence,  several  of  them  be- 
ing found  nowhere  else,  and  they  cannot  therefore  be  ad- 
duced as  belonging  to  the  writer's  ordinary  style.  And 
there  is  not  a  single  instance  that  is  suggestive  of  a  di- 
versity of  documents. 

The  critical  arguments  for  the  severance  of  this  narra- 
tive thus  collapse  entirely  upon  examination.  And  yet 
this  is  accounted  one  of  the  most  plausible  cases  of  crit  - 


THE   FLOOD    (CH.    VI.   9-IX.  17)  121 

ical  partition.  As  it  fails  here,  so  it  does  everywhere 
throughout  the  Pentateuch.  The  evidences  of  unity  of 
authorship  are  everywhere  too  strong  to  be  overcome  by 
the  devices  which  the  critics  employ  for  the  purpose. 


NUMERICAL    CORRESPONDENCE. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  to  discover  numerical 
correspondences  in  the  duration  of  the  flood,  but  with- 
out any  marked  success.  The  rains  began  on  the  17th 
day  of  the  2d  month,  and  on  the  27th  day  of  the  2d 
month  in  the  following  year  the  earth  was  again  dry 
(viii,  14).  If  the  reckoning  was  by  lunar  years  of  354 
days,  this  would  amount  precisely  to  a  solar  year  of  365 
days.  But  this  was  plainly  not  the  case,  since  the  5 
months  to  the  resting  of  the  ark  (viii.  4 ;  comp.  vii.  11) 
amounted  to  150  days  (vii.  24).  Five  lunar  months 
would  yield  but  147  days.  Evidently  the  reckoning  is 
by  months  of  30  days.  If  the  year  consisted  of  twelve 
such  months,  the  flood  lasted  371  days  ;  if  5  intercalary 
days  were  added,  as  in  the  ancient  Egyptian  year,  the 
flood  lasted  376  days.  As  neither  of  these  sums  corre- 
spond with  any  customary  division  of  time,  critics  have 
claimed  that  the  test  has  been  remodelled  by  a  later 
hand,  and  a  conflicting  computation  inserted,  according 
to  which  the  flood  lasted  300  days,  rising  to  its  height  in 
150  days  (vii.  24),  and  subsiding  for  an  equal  term.  To 
be  sure  the  period  of  subsidence  is  nowhere  so  reckoned, 
but  the  critics  suppose  that  it  must  have  been  intended, 
since  75  days,  one-half  of  this  term,  elapsed  between  the 
resting  of  the  ark  on  the  17tli  of  the  7th  month  (viii.  4), 
and  the  appearance  of  the  tops  of  the  mountains  on  the 
1st  of  the  10th  month  (ver.  5).  But  it  was  4  months  and 
26  days  after  this  before  the  earth  was  sufficientlv  dry 
for  Noah  to  leave  the  ark.     There  is  no  conflict  of  state- 


122  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

ment,  tlierefore,  and  no  need  of  remodelling  the  text. 
The  writer  was  more  concerned  for  the  historical  truth 
of  his  statement  than  for  a  numerical  correspondence, 
such  as  the  critics  are  so  eager  to  discover,  and  which 
the  LXX.  sought  to  introduce  by  changing  17th  to  27th 
in  vii.  11,  thus  making  the  flood  continue  exactly  a  year. 

THE  ASSYEIAN  FLOOD  TABLETS. 

The  Babylonian  account  of  the  flood,  as  reported  by 
Berosus,  has  long  been  known  to  bear  a  striking  similar- 
ity to  the  narrative  in  Genesis.  This  has  been  recently 
confirmed,  and  our  knowledge  of  the  relation  between 
them  materially  increased  by  the  discovery  of  the  cunei- 
form flood  tablets  belonging  to  the  library  of  Assui'bani- 
pal,  and  copied  from  a  much  older  Babylonish  original. 
The  coincidences  between  the  Babylonish  and  the  He- 
brew account  are  so  pervading  and  remarkable  as  clearly 
to  establish  a  community  of  origin ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  divergences  are  so  numerous  and  so  serious  as 
to  make  it  evident  that  neither  has  been  directly  copied 
from  the  other.  The  suggestion  of  Friedrich  Delitzsch 
and  of  Haupt,  that  the  story  was  first  adopted  by  the 
Jews  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  is  very 
justly  repelled  by  Schrader  and  Dillmann  on  two  dis- 
tinct grounds.  1.  "It  is  utterly  insupposable  that  the 
Jews  should  have  appropriated  from  their  foes,  the  Bab- 
ylonians, a  local  tradition  altogether  foreign  to  them- 
selves originally,  and  saturated  by  the  most  silly  polythe- 
ism." 2.  Its  inseparable  connection  with  portions  of  the 
Pentateuch  which  are  demonstrably  pre-exilic.  The 
manifest  allusions  of  the  earlier  prophets  to  passages  in 
the  Pentateuch,  which  all  divisive  critics  agree  to  refer 
to  J,  make  it  impossible  to  assign  that  so-called  document 
to  a  later  period  than  the  seventh  or  eighth  century  be- 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.   VI.   9-IX.    17)  123 

fore  Clirist.  Beyond  all  question  tlie  story  of  the  flood 
was  known  to  the  Jews  at  that  time,  and  formed  a  part 
of  their  sacred  tradition.  The  fact  that  Noah  is  not  ex- 
phcitly  mentioned  in  the  subsequent  Scriptures  until  Isa. 
liv.  9  (which  the  critics  pronounce  esiUc)  and  Ezek.  xiv. 
14,  20,  as  a  purely  negative  testimony  is  of  no  force 
against  the  positive  proof  above  adduced.  Dr.  Dillmann 
shows  the  futility  of  the  argument  from  that  source  by 
adducing  the  parallel  case  of  the  narrative  of  the  fall 
(Gen.  iii.),^  which  is  nowhere  else  alluded  to  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Kueuen,  Schrader  and  others  maintain  that 
the  account  of  the  flood  was  first  brought  from  Assyria 
or  Babylonia  in  the  seventh  or  eighth  century  before 
Christ.  But,  as  Dillman  urges,  why  should  the  Jews  have 
accepted  this  foreign  story,  so  variant  in  many  particulars 
from  their  own  style  of  thought,  and  enshrined  it  in  the 
place  which  it  occupies  in  their  sacred  traditions  and  the 
line  of  their  ancestry,  if  it  was  altogether  unknown  to 
them  before  ?  And  why,  he  asks,  should  it  be  imagined 
that  the  story  of  the  flood  never  spread  to  surrounding 
nations  until  so  late  a  period  as  this  ?  And  if  to  other 
nations,  why  not  to  Israel?  The  readiness  with  which 
high  antiquity  is  conceded  to  the  productions  and  beliefs 
of  other  nations,  often  on  the  most  slender  grounds,  while 
the  opposite  propensity  is  manifested  in  the  case  of  Is- 
rael, and  everything  assigned  to  the  latest  possible  period, 
is,  to  say  the  least,  very  singular  and  is  not  very  credit- 
able to  scholarly  impartiality  and  fair  dealing. 

The  well-attested  fact  of  the  migration  of  Abraham, 
or  the  ancestors  of  Israel,  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees, 
gives  a  point  of  connection  which  on  any  theory  of  the 
relation  of  these  narratives  satisfactorily  explains  both 
their  agreement  and  their  divergence.  Whether  Abra- 
ham derived  his  knowledge  of  the  flood  from  traditions 
'  The  critics  themselves  refer  J  to  the  eighth  century  B.C. 


124  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

current  in  the  region  of  Ur,  which  were  purged  of  their 
polytheistic  taint  by  his  own  purer  faith  and  that  of  his 
descendants,  or  whether,  as  I  believe,  a  truer  account 
free  from  mythological  conceit  was  transmitted  to  him  in 
the  line  of  a  pious  ancestry,  Ave  need  not  now  inquire. 
But  on  either  view  of  the  case  an  obvious  solution  of  the 
whole  matter,  and  one  against  which  no  serious  objec- 
tion can  be  urged,  is  that  Abraham  brought  with  him  to 
Canaan  substantially  that  conception  of  primeval  history 
which  subsequently  formed  part  of  the  faith  of  his  de- 
scendants. There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  the  as- 
sumption that  this  was  a  post-Mosaic  addition  to  Israel's 
Oi'eed. 

The  only  further  question  with  which  we  are  at  pres- 
ent concerned,  is  as  to  the  bearing  of  the  flood  tablets 
upon  critical  partition.  The  patent  fact  is  that  they 
stand  in  equal  relation  to  the  entire  Hebrew  narrative  as 
an  undivided  whole,  with  no  suggestion  of  any  such 
line  of  partition  as  the  critics  undertake  to  draw  in  it, 
but  both  having  a  like  affinity  for,  and  exhibiting  a  like 
divergence  from,  all  that  lies  on  either  side  of  the  line,  or 
what  the  critics  severally  denominate  J  and  P. 

The  Chaldean  account  agi'ees,  in  the  first  place,  vnth 
what  is  affirmed  in  P  and  J  paragi*aphs  alike,  that  there 
was  a  great  flood,  divinely  sent,  which  destroyed  all  men 
and  animals  except  those  saved  in  a  single  vessel  with 
one  man,  to  whom  the  coming  of  the  catastrophe  had 
been  disclosed,  and  who  had  gathered  into  this  vessel 
different  species  of  tame  and  wild  beasts,  and  the  mem- 
bers of  his  own  family.  The  Chaldean  account  adds  his 
relatives,  and  male  and  female  servants,  together  with  his 
valuables  and  a  pilot.  Assurance  is  given  in  both  ac- 
counts that  mankind  should  not  be  again  destroyed  by  a 
flood  ;  the  Chaldean  adds  that  other  forms  of  judgment 
might  take  its  place,  as  wild  beasts,  famine,  and  pesti- 


THE   FLOOD   (CH.    VI.  9-IX.   17)  125 

lence.  There  is  an  intimation  near  the  close  of  the  Chal- 
dean account  that  the  flood  was  sent  because  men  had 
offended  Bel,  one  of  the  gods ;  but  no  prominence  is 
given,  as  in  the  Hebrew,  to  the  thought  that  it  was  a 
righteous  retribution.  It  is  ascribed  rather  to  the  hasty 
temper  of  Bel,  which  was  censured  by  the  other  gods. 
And  the  deliverance  was  not  due  to  the  righteousness  of 
any  that  were  saved.  Bel  was  indignant  that  any  escaped 
the  destraction  which  he  had  intended  for  the  entire 
race,  and  was  only  calmed  by  the  remonstrance  of  other 
deities. 

There  are  special  points  of  agreement  between  the 
Chaldean  account  and  the  paragraphs  assigned  to  P, 
viz.,  that  the  patriarch  was  divinely  directed  to  build  the 
vessel,  and  that  of  prescribed  dimensions,  length,  breadth, 
and  height  (though  the  measures  are  not  the  same),  to 
pitch  it  within  and  without  with  bitumen,  and  to  stock 
it  with  provisions;  that  he  entered  it  on  the  very  day 
that  the  flood  came,  or  the  day  before ;  that  the  great 
deep  as  well  as  the  heavens  supplied  the  waters  of  the 
flood ;  that  the  ark  rested  on  a  mountain,  though  the  lo- 
cality is  not  the  same.' 

There  are  also  special  points  of  agreement  between  the 
Chaldean  account  and  the  paragraphs  assigned  to  J,  viz., 
the  mention  of  a  covering  to  the  ark,  of  the  shutting  of 
the  door  (by  Jehovah  in  the  Hebrew,  by  the  patriarch 
himself  in  the  Chaldean) ;  of  the  duration  of  the  storm 
(though  the  time  stated  is  difterent,  in  the  Hebrew  forty 
days  and  forty  nights,  in  the  Chaldean  six  days  and  six  or 
perhaps  seven  nights)  ;  of  the  opening  of  a  window  (in 
the  Hebrew  after,  in  the  Chaldean  before,  the  resting  of 
the   ark) ;   of   the   sending  forth  of  birds   to   ascertain 

'  Dr.  Haupt  at  one  time  understood  the  tablets  to  state  in  addition  that 
a  celestial  bow  was  displayed  after  the  occupants  of  the  ark  had  landed. 
But  he  has  since  abandoned  this  translation  as  incorrect. 


126  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

whether  the  flood  had  ceased  (in  the  Chaldean  seven 
days,  in  the  Hebrew  forty  days  after  the  resting  of  the 
ark ;  in  the  Chaldean  a  dove,  a  swallow,  and  a  raven,  each 
immediately  upon  the  return  of  its  predecessor,  the  last 
not  returning  at  all ;  in  the  Hebrew  a  raven,  which  did  not 
return,  then  a  dove,  thrice  at  intervals  of  seven  days,  first 
retui-ning  as  it  went,  the  second  time  with  a  fresh  olive 
leaf,  the  third  time  not  returning)  ;  and  after  disembark- 
ing, of  the  erection  of  an  altar  and  offering  sacrifice, 
whose  sweet  savor  was  agreeable  to  the  divinity  (in  the 
Chaldean  the  gods  gathered  like  flies  about  the  sweet 
odor).  The  Chaldean  makes  no  mention  of  the  distinc- 
tion of  clean  and  unclean  beasts  recognized  in  the  He- 
brew. 

The  Chaldean  account  departs  entirely  from  the  He- 
brew in  representing  the  patriarch  as  apprehending  the 
ridicule  of  the  people  if  he  should  build  the  ship  (ac- 
cording to  a  probable  understanding  of  it),  and  pleading 
that  such  a  ship  had  never  before  been  constructed,  and 
in  portraying  his  distress  at  beholding  the  scene  of  deso- 
lation ;  also  in  representing  the  gods  as  terrified  by  the 
flood  and  in  the  whole  polytheistic  setting  of  the  story, 
and  in  the  translation  of  the  patriarch  and  his  wife  to 
dwell  among  the  gods. 

This  common  relation  of  the  Chaldean  account  to  the 
Hebrew  narrative  as  a  whole  testifies  strongly  to  its 
unity,  and  to  the  arbitrary  character  of  the  partition 
made  by  the  critics. 

See  the  translations  of  the  flood  tablets  by  George 
Smith,  the  discoverer  of  them,  in  his  "  Assyrian  Discov- 
eries," 1875  ;  "  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,"  1876  ; 
"  Eecords  of  the  Past,"  vol.  vii.  ;  also  by  Dr.  Paul  Haupt 
in  Schrader's  "  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament," 
and  by  Dr.  John  D.  Davis  in  the  Presbyterian  Revieio 
for  July,  1889,  and  in  his  Genesis  and  Semitic  Tradition. 


NOAH   AFTER  THE   FLOOD   (CH.   IX.    18-29)        127 


NOAH  AFTER  THE  FLOOD   (CH.   IX.   18-29). 

The  critics  assign  the  concluding  verses  of  this  para- 
graph (vs.  28,  29)  to  P.  They  evidently  refer  back  to 
the  statement  of  Noah's  age  at  the  time  of  the  iiood  (vii. 
6),  and  complete  the  record  of  Noah's  life  begun  in  v.  32 
in  the  exact  terms  of  the  preceding  genealogy.  They  are 
thus  linked  at  once  with  the  narrative  of  the  flood  and 
with  ch.  v.,  and  must  be  by  the  same  author.  "\Ye  have, 
however,  seen  no  evidence  in  these  sections  of  a  narrator 
P  as  distinguished  from  J,  and  none  is  suggested  in  the 
verses  before  us.  It  is  at  any  rate  a  remarkable  circum- 
stance, if  Genesis  is  compiled  from  different  documents, 
all  of  which  must  have  mentioned  the  death  of  each  of 
the  patriarchs  whose  lives  they  recorded,  that  the  fact  of 
their  death  is  invariably  taken  from  P,  and  never  from  J, 
even  when,  as  in  the  present  instance,  a  J  section  imme- 
diately precedes. 

The  opening  verses  of  the  jDaragraph  (vs.  18, 19)  are  as- 
signed to  J,  who  had  previously  spoken  of  the  sons  of 
Noah  (vii.  7)  as  entering  with  him  into  the  ark,  but  had 
not  mentioned  their  names,  while  these  have  been  be- 
fore stated  by  P  (v.  32  ;  vi.  10 ;  vii.  13,  and  again  in  x.  1). 
But  if  the  same  writer  could  repeat  their  names  four 
times,  there  is  no  very  evident  reason  why  he  might  not 
do  so  once  more,  or  why  the  fifth  repetition  must  neces- 
sarily imply  a  diflferent  writer.  The  critics  tell  us  that 
vs.  18,  19  were  in  J  introductory  to  the  table  of  nations 
as  given  in  that  document,  and  were  immediately  fol- 
lowed by  it,  though,  as  they  divide  ch.  x. ,  J  only  records 
the  descendants  of  two  sons  of  Noah,  Ham  and  Shem, 
but  none  of  Japheth  ;  and  ver.  18b  "  Ham  is  the  father 
of  Canaan,"  plainly  shows  them  to  be  preparatory  to 
the   narrative    in    vs.    20-27,   a   conclusion   which   can 


128  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   NOAH 

only  be  escaped  by  rejecting  this  clause  as  an  interpola- 
tion. 

Verse  20  is  understood  to  trace  tlie  origin  of  the  art  of 
agriculture,  and  especially  the  culture  of  the  vine,  to 
Noah.  It  is  hence  conjectured  that  vs.  20-27  is  a  frag- 
ment from  an  ancient  document,  to  which  iv.  17-24  con- 
taining a  record  of  the  origin  of  other  arts  is  likewise  re- 
ferred, and  from  which  J  is  supposed  to  have  again 
drawn.  While  in  the  preceding  narrative  Noah's  sons 
are  spoken  of  as  married,  it  is  alleged  that  here  they  are 
represented  as  children  and  occupying  the  same  tent  with 
himself.  But  this  is  pure  invention  ;  there  is  no  such 
declaration  or  implication  in  anything  that  is  said.  Ham 
is  here  called  Noah's  youngest  son  (ver.  24) ;  this  is  held 
to  imply  in  J  a  different  concej)tion  of  their  relative  ages 
from  that  of  P,  who  always  names  them  in  the  order 
Sliem,  Ham,  and  Japheth.  Bat  they  stand  in  the  same 
order  in  ix.  18,  which  is  attributed  to  J.  If  it  be  said 
that  R  has  in  this  instance  changed  J's  order  to  make  it 
conform  to  that  of  P,  the  question  arises  why  he  did  not 
likewise  correct  ver.  24  for  the  same  reason.  The  fact  is 
that  the  order  of  their  names  is  not  determined  by  their 
respective  ages  but  by  an  entirely  different  reason. 
Shem  as  the  ancestor  of  the  chosen  race  is  placed  first, 
as  Abram  is  for  the  like  cause  in  xi.  26.  Ham,  as  the  an- 
cestor of  nations  standing  in  a  nearer  relation  to  the  He- 
brews than  the  descendants  of  Japheth,  comes  next, 
and  Japheth  last.  In  ch.  x.  the  order  is  precisely  re- 
versed. The  table  of  nations  begins  with  those  sprung 
from  Japheth  as  the  most  remote  ;  Ham  follows,  then 
Shem,  the  series  thus  drawing  gradually  nearer  to  the 
chosen  race,  whose  direct  genealogy  is  reserved  for  xi. 
10  sqq. 

In  ix.  20-27  an  ancient  prophecy  from  the  mouth  of 
Noah,  in  which  the  names  of  Shem,  Japheth,  and  Canaan 


NOAH    AFTER   THE   FLOOD    (CH.    IX.    18-29)         129 

appear,   is   recorded    together    with  the   circumstances 
under  which  it  was  delivered. 

Cursed  be  Canaan  ; 

A  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren. 

Blessed  be  Jehovah  the  God  of  Shem  ; 

And  let  Canaan  be  his  servant. 

God  enlarge  Japheth, 

And  let  him  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem  ; 

And  let  Canaan  be  his  servant. 

The  critics  think  the  circumstances  improbable ;  there- 
fore they  pronounce  them  untrue.  Noah,  they  say,  is 
here,  ver.  20,  a  "  husbandman,  a  role  quite  distinct  from 
that  of  a  navigator,"  which  he  sustains  elsewhere  ;  the 
remark  seems  to  imply  that  he  should  have  been  culti- 
vating the  soil  during  the  flood,  or  should  continue  to 
sail  about  in  the  ark  after  the  flood  was  over.  The  crit- 
ics can  see  no  reason  why  sentence  should  have  been 
pronounced  upon  Canaan  for  the  shameful  deed  of  his 
father ;  therefore  they  conclude  that  there  was  no  reason, 
and  that  it  was  not  done.  As  though  it  were  not  the 
keenest  of  inflictions  upon  a  father  to  be  punished  in  his 
child  ;  and  as  though  the  law  of  heredity,  the  propaga- 
tion of  character,  and  the  perpetuation  of  the  evil  conse- 
quences of  transgression  generation  after  generation,  were 
not  among  the  most  patent  and  familiar  facts,  of  which 
the  beastliness  of  the  Canaanites  and  their  merited  doom 
afford  a  signal  illustration.  And  now  if  they  may  change 
the  text  of  the  nan-ative  on  the  pretext  of  conforming  it 
to  the  prophecy,  and  so  make  Shem,  Japheth,  and  Canaan 
the  three  sons  of  Noah,  they  can  bring  it  into  conflict 
with  every  other  statement  on  the  subject  in  the  history  ; 
whence  they  infer  that  this  has  been  extracted  from  a 
document  J',  at  variance  with  both  J  and  P.  Or  if  they 
may  reverse  the  process  and  insert  Ham  instead  of 
Canaan  in  the  prophecy,  they  can  show  that  it  was  not 
9 


130  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   NOAH 

fulfilled.  Or  if  they  may  put  a  belittling  interpretation 
upon  the  prophecy,  and  restrict  it  to  tribes  inhabiting 
Palestine,  Shem  denoting  Israel  and  Japheth  the  Philis- 
tines in  contrast  with  the  Canaanites,  as  is  done  by  Well- 
hausen,  they  can  shoAv  how  the  meaning  can  be  perverted 
by  giving  arbitrary  senses  to  words  at  variance  wdth  their 
well-known  and  invariable  signification.  By  this  time 
they  have  shown  that  something  is  absurd.  They  think 
that  it  is  this  venerable  prophecy,  whose  profound  and 
far-reaching  meaning,  whose  appropriateness  in  a  book 
intended  for  Israel  about  to  enter  on  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  and  whose  exact  fulfilment  have  been  univer- 
sally recognized.  Most  persons  will  think  that  the  ab- 
surdity is  in  the  critical  treatment  of  the  passage. 

Delitzsch  says,  in  his  "  Commentary  "  upon  Gen.  ix. 
18b,  "  And  Ham  is  the  father  of  Canaan  :  "  "  This  clause 
is  now  mostly  regarded  as  an  addition  by  the  redactor, 
since  the  conclusion  is  drawn  from  the  curse  upon 
Canaan  that  in  the  original  form  of  the  narrative  it  was 
Canaan  who  sinned  against  Noah  (Dillmann  and  others). 
Some  go  farther  and  maintain  that  in  its  original  shape  the 
three  sons  of  Noah  were  not  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth, 
but  Shem,  Japheth,  and  Canaan  (AVellhausen).  From 
this  Budde,  by  means  of  critical  operations,  which  tran- 
scend our  horizon,  obtains  the  result  that  the  following 
narrative  originally  stood  after  xi.  9,  and  began,  '  There 
went  forth  also  from  Babel  Noah,  the  son  of  Jabal,  he 
and  his  wife  and  his  three  sons,  Shem,  Japheth,  and 
Canaan,  and  he  came  to  Aram-naharaim  and  abode  there.' 
So,  as  he  supposes,  wrote  J',  who,  as  Wellhausen  and 
Kuenen  also  assume,  knew  nothing  of  a  deluge.  We 
here  see  a  specimen  of  what  emulation  in  the  art  of  sev- 
ering can  accomplish." 


IV 


THE  GENEEATIONS  OF  THE  SONS  OF  NOAH  (CH.  X.  1- 

XI.  9) 

ORIGIN  OF  NATIONS  (CH.  X.) 

The  generations  of  the  sons  of  Noah  (ch.  x.  1-xi.  9) 
record  the  dispersion  of  mankind  over  the  earth ;  and 
the  generations  of  Shem  (xi.  10-26)  trace  the  Hue  of  de- 
scent to  Abram.  This  completes  the  preliminary  por- 
tion of  the  history  of  Genesis,  inasmuch  as  it  fills  up  the 
interval  between  the  flood  and  the  birth  of  Abram,  with 
whom  the  history  of  the  chosen  race  properly  begins. 
These  sections  are  intimately  related  to  one  another,  as 
well  as  closely  connected  both  with  what  precedes  and 
what  follows.  The  genealogical  table  in  ch.  x.  exhibits 
the  filiation  and  relationship  of  the  several  nations  of 
antiquity,  and  is  intimately  united  with  the  antecedent 
history  of  Noah's  family.  Ch.  x,  1  contains  an  explicit 
reference  to  the  flood,  the  narrative  of  which  had  just 
been  concluded,  and  proposes  to  state  the  descendants 
of  the  three  sons  of  Noah,  that  were  born  to  them  after 
the  flood.  The  way  for  it  had  been  prepared  by  God's 
blessing  Noah  and  his  sous  (ix.  1,  7),  and  bidding  them 
multiply  and  replenish  the  earth;  as  well  as  by  the 
statement  (ix.  19)  that  of  the  three  sons  of  Noah  was  the 
whole  earth  overspread.  Thus  introduced,  a  detailed 
account  is  given  of  the  particular  nations  spruug  from 
them,  which  did  thus  overspread  the  earth  (x.  32).  Then 
follows  (xi.  1-9)  a  narrative  of  the  occurrences  at  Babel, 


132      THE   GEISTERATIONS   OF   THE   SONS    OF   NOAH 

which  led  to  their  being  scattered  over  the  earth,  of 
which  intimations  had  already  been  given  (x.  10,  25). 

This  table  of  the  nations  of  mankind  has  its  appro- 
priate place  in  the  sacred  history.  It  is  inserted  just 
here  for  a  double  reason  :  1.  To  make  a  distinct  declara- 
tion at  the  outset  of  their  kinship  to  the  chosen  race, 
with  which  the  history  is  henceforth  more  particularly  to 
occupy  itself.  All  are  sprung  from  the  same  ancestry, 
and  all  are  ultimately  to  share  in  the  blessing  to  come 
upon  all  the  families  of  mankind  through  the  seed  of 
Abraham  (xii.  3).  This  conception  of  the  universal 
brotherhood  of  man  is  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures, and  is  as  remote  as  possible  from  that  which  was 
generally  entertained  by  ancient  nations,  who  looked 
upon  foreigners  as  barbarians  and  enemies.  2.  They 
are  thus  in  accordance  with  the  uniform  plan  of  the 
book  formally  dismissed  from  the  sacred  history,  which 
proceeds  at  once  in  accordance  with  the  intimation  given 
(ix.  26,  27)  to  devote  itself  to  the  consideration  of  the 
chosen  seed  by  tracing  the  descent  of  Abram  from  Shem  ; 
precisely  as  (iv.  17  sqq.)  the  descendants  of  Cain  were 
recorded  before  leaving  them  to  trace  the  line  of  descent 
through  Seth  (ch.  v.),  and  as  in  the  various  instances 
that  follow  the  divergent  lines  are  first  indicated  before 
proceeding  with  the  direct  and  principal  line. 

The  speciality  Avith  which  the  Canaanitish  tribes  are 
noted  and  their  residences  specified  (x.  15-19)  is  also  ob- 
servable, since  this  is  intimately  linked  ^vith  the  general 
purpose  of  the  books  of  Moses,  and  with  the  occasion 
upon  which  they  were  written. 

Noldeke,  in  common,  as  he  says,  with  the  majority  of 
critics,  assigns  ch.  x.  to  P,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  in- 
sertions by  R,  viz.,  vs.  8-11,  relating  to  Nimrod  and 
Asshur,  ver.  21,  and  some  Avords  in  vs.  19  and  25.  Kay- 
ser  gives  the  entire  chapter  to  J,  as  is  done  likewise  by 


OEIGIN   OF   NATIONS   (CH.    X.)  133 

Tuch,  Hupfeld,  and  others,  in  imitation  of  Astruc  and 
Eicliliorn  ;  and  claims  tliat  vs.  8-11  and  21  are  x^roperly 
connected  as  they  stand.  Movers  ^  divides  the  chapter, 
giving  vs.  8-19,  21,  24-30,  to  J,  and  the  rest  to  P ;  in 
this  he  is  followed  by  Wellhausen  (who  gives  ver.  21  and 
a  clause  in  ver.  14  to  E),  Dillmann  (who  gives  K,  in  ad- 
dition, ver.  9,  and  some  words  in  ver.  19),  and  most  re- 
cent critics.^ 

This  partition  is  altogether  arbitrary.  It  is  princi- 
pally based  upon  a  variation  in  the  form  of  expression 
in  different  verses  of  the  chapter.  Those  verses  in  which 
the  line  of  descent  is  traced  by  the  phrase  "  the  sons 
of,"  are  assigned  to  P  ;  the  remaining  verses,  which  use 
the  word  i^  begat  or  b  i^";^  luere  born  to,  are  attributed  to 
J.     But—  " 

1.  The  genealogies  assigned  by  the  critics  to  P  are  not 
uniform  in  this  particular ;  thus  while  the  P  sections  of  this 
chapter  have  "  the  sons  of,"  ch.  v.  and  xi.  10-26  have 
libin  begat;  nor  do  the  different  parts  of  the  same 
genealogy  invariably  preserve  the  same  uniform  style 
(Gen.  slvi.,  see  ver.  20 ;  Ex.  vi.  14  sqq.,  see  vs.  20,  23,  25). 
There  is  no  propriety,  therefore,  in  making  the  lack  of 
absolute  uniformity  here  the  pretext  for  critical  division. 

2.  The  same  diversity  of  expressions  as  in  ch.  x.  re- 
curs in  other  genealogies,  which  no  critic  thinks  of  par- 
celling between  distinct  sources  on  that  account.  Thus 
XXV.  1-4  is  attril3uted  to  J,  although  ver.  3a  has  "ib; 
begat,  and  vs.  3b,  4,  "  the  sons  of."  In  xlvi.  8-27  "  the 
sons  of "  and  h  ^^;i  loere  born  to,  occur  not  only  in  the 
same  indivisible  genealogy,  but  in  the  same  verses  (vs. 
22,  27).     And  7vere  born  to  b  ^b^^l  '^  occm-s  in   a  P  verse 

>  Zeitschrift  fiir  Philosophie  und  Katbolische  Tlieologie,  Heft  18, 
1836,  p.  102. 

■  Schrader  divides  it  between  J  and  E. 

3  The  Niphal  future  of  this  verb  corresponds  to  the  Pual  preterite. 
Comp.  iv.  18,  26  ;  xlvi.  20,  27;  2  Sam.  iii.  2,  5. 


134      THE   GENERATIONS   OF   THE   SONS   OF   NOAH 

in  the  genealogy  before  us  (x.  1).  The  attempt  has  been 
made  to  evade  this  by  dividing  the  verse  and  assigning 
ver.  la  to  P,  and  ver.  lb  to  J.  But  Dillmann  says  of 
this  arbitrary  sundering  of  the  sentence  :  "  No  reason 
can  be  seen  why  ver.  lb  should  be  not  from  P,  but  a 
continuation  of  ix.  18a  J," 

3.  The  proposed  partition  of  this  chapter  is  impracti- 
cable for  a  double  reason.  (1)  The  incompleteness  of 
the  portion  ascribed  to  J,  and  (2)  the  mutual  depend- 
ence of  what  is  respectively  given  to  J  and  to  P.  The 
critics  are  compelled  to  give  J  a  share  in  this  chapter, 
both  in  order  to  justify  the  intimation  given  in  that  doc- 
ument (ix.  18,  19),  "  of  the  three  sons  of  Noah  was  the 
whole  earth  overspread,"  and  to  find  something  by  which 
to  bridge  the  chasm  from  Noah  to  Abram,  who  when  first 
introduced  in  J  (xi.  29),  is  spoken  of  as  though  he  were 
already  known.  And  yet  the  portion  attributed  to  J 
fails  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  case,  since  it  does 
not  fulfil  the  expectations  legitimately  created  in  either 
of  these  respects.  As  a  statement  of  the  descendants  of 
Noah,  it  begins  abruptly,  and  is  fragmentary  in  its  charac- 
ter. Kautzsch  imagines  that  ix.  18,  19  has  been  trans- 
posed by  the  redactor,  and  that  it  originally  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  genealogical  table  in  J,  and  was  connected 
with  X.  lb.  This  groundless  conjecture  is  an  attempt  to 
supply  an  appropriate  beginning  to  J  which  is  mani- 
festly lacking.  Moreover,  it  contains  no  mention  of  the 
descendants  of  Japheth,  which  must  have  been  included 
in  any  conspectus  of  those  who  were  sprung  from  the 
sons  of  Noah  ;  see  also  x.  21  J.  And  further,  there  is  no 
introductory  statement  connecting  the  descendants  of 
Ham,  vs.  8  sqq.,  with  Ham  himself.  These  gaps  are  all 
created  by  the  partition,  and  result  from  sundering  what 
belongs  together.  What  is  thus  obviously  missing  in  J 
lies  before  us  in  what  the  critics  have  arbitrarily  sepa- 


OEIGIN    OF   NATIONS    (CH.    X.)  135 

rated  from  it  and  given  to  P.  And  what  has  been  given 
to  J  is  needed  to  make  up  the  deficiencies  thus  created 
in  P,  P  tells  us  of  Mizraim  and  Canaan,  sons  of  Ham, 
but  we  must  look  to  J  for  the  names  of  their  descend- 
ants.    Evidently  these  belong  together. 

It  is  claimed  that  what  is  missing  from  J's  account 
may  have  been  contained  in  that  document  originally 
and  omitted  by  R,  because  ah-eady  stated  with  sufficient 
fulness  in  the  extracts  taken  from  P.  It  is  easy  to  spec- 
ulate on  what  might  have  been.  But  the  fact  is  that 
the  gaps  in  J  are  adequately  supplied  in  the  text  as  it 
stands  at  present.  The  assumption  that  another  parallel 
account  of  the  very  same  things  ever  existed  as  a  part  of 
the  document  J  is  based  on  the  prior  assumption  of  the 
separate  existence  of  that  document  as  a  complete  and 
independent  production.  An  inference  from  a  hypothe- 
sis lends  no  support  to  that  hypothesis,  but  depends 
upon  it,  and  is  only  valid  after  the  hypothesis  has  first 
been  established. 

On  the  ground  of  the  correspondence  between  ver.  25 
and  xi.  16,  Wellhausen  claims  that  the  former  bears  wit- 
ness to  the  existence  of  a  genealogy  in  J  parallel  to  xi. 
10-26,  which  traces  the  descent  of  Abram  from  Shem. 
This  is  coupled  with  the  assertion  that  x.  24  is  an  inser- 
tion by  R  with  the  view  of  harmonizing  J's  account  with 
that  of  P  (xi.  10-14) ;  and  that  the  line  from  Shem  to 
Abram  in  J,  embraced  but  seven  names  (Arpachshad, 
Shelah,  and  probably  Nahor,^  the  father  of  Terah,  being 
omitted)  as  against  ten  in  P  (comp.  the  six  names  from 
Adam  to  Lamech  in  iv.  17,  18  J,  and  the  nine  in  ch.  v. 
P,  with  one  to  be  added  to  each  series  for  Noah,  as  Well- 
hausen conjectures).  But  this  is  baseless  speculation  in 
all  its  parts.  For  x.  24  is  indispensable  in  its  place,  and 
cannot  have  been  interpolated  by  R.  In  x.  21,  Shem  is 
'  So  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  p.  330. 


136      THE   GENERATIONS   OF   THE   SONS    OF   NOAH 

called  "  the  father  of  all  the  children  of  Eber,"  i.e.,  the 
Hebrews  as  well  as  other  tribes  and  nations  sprung  from 
the  same  stock,  vs.  26-29.  But  the  links  of  descent  from 
Shem  to  Eber  are  first  given  in  ver.  24.  Budde  ^  proposes 
to  remove  this  difficulty  by  altering  the  test  of  x.  21  to 
"  Shem  the  father  of  Eber,"  as  the  only  expedient  by  which 
it  can  be  made  "  a  serviceable  link  in  a  J  genealogy."  The 
need  of  so  violent  a  remedy  exposes  the  falsity  of  the  as- 
sumption which  requires  it.  Yer.  24  is  a  necessary  con- 
stituent of  the  text,  and  cannot  have  been  a  later  addition 
to  it.  And  then  the  dependence  of  vs.  24,  25  upon  ver.  22, 
and  their  substantial  identity  with  xi.  10-16,  forbid  the 
notion  of  their  being  independent  genealogies  extracted 
from  distinct  sources.  The  abbreviated  form  of  the  for- 
mer, and  the  use  of  ibi  instead  of  T^bin  hegaf,  are  not  sug- 
gestive of  diversity  of  authorship,  but  ordinary  charac- 
teristics of  the  side  lines  in  distinction  from  the  direct 
genealogy  of  the  chosen  race.  Moreover,  x.  25  is  not  a 
relic  of  w^hat  was  originally  a  complete  genealogy  from 
Shem  to  Abram,  the  remainder  having  been  omitted  by 
R  as  a  needless  parallel  to  that  in  ch.  xi.  It  belongs  in 
the  line  of  descent  of  the  tribes  named  in  vs.  26-29, 
which  diverged  from  that  of  the  chosen  race  with  the 
birth  of  Peleg,  so  named  because  "  in  his  days  was  the 
earth  divided."  Mention  is  here  made  of  Peleg  with  al- 
lusion to  the  narrative  of  the  dispersion  of  the  nations, 
which  is  to  follow  in  the  next  chapter,  and  as  a  link  of 
connection  binding  the  two  chapters  together. 

Nor  can  ver.  21  be  sundered  from  ver.  22  and  assigned 
to  a  distinct  document.  The  absence  of  the  conjunction 
1  and,  from  the  beginning  of  ver.  22  shows  that  it  stands 
in  the  same  relation  to  ver.  21  as  ver.  2  to  ver.  1 ;  while 
the  1  and,  of  ver.  21  links  the  paragraph  containing  the 
descendants  of  Shem  to  the  precediug,  as  in  ver.  6  the 
'  Urgeschichte,  p.  221,  note. 


ORIGIN    OF   NATIONS   (CH.    X.)  137 

descendants  of  Ham.  Driver  appeals  to  Sin  DH  io  him 
also,  as  iv.  22,  26  ;  xix.  38  ;  xxii.  20,  24,  and  the  father  of, 
as  characteristics  of  J.  But  the  father  of  occurs  also  in 
a  P  genealogy  (xxxvi.  9,  43  P,  as  iv.  20,  21 ;  xix.  37,  38  ; 
xxii.  21  J) ;  and  though  there  does  not  chance  to  have 
been  any  occasion  for  connecting  n^  with  i5in  in  a  P  sec- 
tion, it  occurs  with  other  pronouns,  e.g.,  Ex.  vii.  11 ; 
Lev.  xxvi.  24 ;  Num.  xviii.  28. 

Nor  is  there  any  good  reason  for  regarding  vs.  8-12  as 
a  later  addition  to  this  chapter,^  or  as  unsuited  because 
of  its  individual  character  to  a  place  in  this  table  of  na- 
tions. If  this  were  so,  it  would  be  a  bar  to  the  proposed 
critical  partition,  for  it  would  be  as  foreign  to  that  por- 
tion of  the  chaj)ter  which  is  imputed  to  J,  as  to  that  of 
P.  It  is  introduced  in  order  to  connect  the  Babel  to  be 
spoken  of  in  the  next  chapter  with  a  descendant  of  Cush ; 
but  there  is  no  need  on  this  account  of  assuming  with 
Dillmann  that  it  should  properly  follow  xi.  1-9.  It  is 
agreeable  to  the  usage  of  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch 
to  insert  in  genealogical  tables  allusions  to  persons  or 
events  of  note,  especially  those  that  have  been  mentioned 
previously  or  are  to  figure  afterwards,  e.g.,  v.  29  ;  x.  25 ; 
xxii.  23  ;  xxxvi.  6-8,  24 ;  xlvi.  12 ;  Ex.  vi.  20,  23,  25  ; 
Num.  xxvi.  9-11,  33. 

It  is  further  urged  in  proof  of  the  blending  of  separate 
sources  that  diverse  origins  are  attributed  to  the  same 
people ;  thus  Havilah  and  Sheba  according  to  ver.  7  (P) 
are  descended  from  Cush  the  son  of  Ham,  but  according 
to  vs.  28,  29  (J)  from  Joktan  in  the  line  of  Shem  ;  ac- 
cording to  ver.  22  (P)  Lud  sprang  from  Shem,  but  ac- 
cording  to  ver.  13  (J)  from  Mizraim  the  son  of  Ham  ; 

'  Dillmann  urges  that  Nimrod  is  not  named  in  ver.  7  among  the  sons 
of  Cush  ;  but  they  are  nations,  while  he  is  an  individual,  and  is  a  son 
not  in  the  sense  of  an  immediate  descendant,  but  as  Jesus  was  a  son  of 
David,  and  David  a  son  of  Abraham  (Matt.  i.  1). 


138      THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   THE   SONS    OF   NOAII 

Aram  is  said  to  be  descended  from  Shem,  and  Uz  from 
Aram,  vs.  22,  23  (P),  but,  xxii.  21  (J)  Uz  and  Aram  are 
traced  to  Nahor,  the  brother  of  Abraham,  and,  xxxvi.  28 
(R),  Uz  is  included  among  the  descendants  of  Seir ;  Dedan, 
ver.  7,  is  inchided  among  the  descendants  of  Cush  the 
son  of  Ham,  but,  xxv.  3,  among  those  of  Abraham  by 
Keturah.  It  is  claimed  that  these  variant  representa- 
tions must  have  proceeded  from  different  writers.  This 
is,  however,  by  no  means  a  necessary  inference.     For — 

(1)  The  critics  themselves  do  not  adhere  to  this  rule  ; 
Sheba  (x.  28)  was  descended  from  Joktan,  but  (xxv.  3) 
from  Abraham  by  Keturah,  yet  the  critics  refer  both 
these  passages  to  J. 

(2)  The  apparent  difficulty  admits  of  a  ready  solution 
in  one  or  other  of  two  ways.  The  same  name  may  have 
been  borne  by  distinct  peoples.  Thus  Asshur  (x.  22)  was 
descended  from  Shem  ;  and  yet  Asshurim  are  mentioned 
(xxv.  3)  among  those  that  sprang  from  Abraham  by 
Keturah.  Here  it  is  obviously  incredible  that  the  author 
could  have  meant  to  identify  this  obscure  tribe  with  the 
great  Assyrian  nation,  and  to  represent  the  latter  as  de- 
scended from  Abraham.  Dillmann  acknowledges  that 
the  Ludim  (x.  13),  who  are  not  only  here  but  by  the 
prophets  ( Jer.  xlvi.  9 ;  Ezek.  xxvii.  10  ;  xxx.  5)  associ- 
ated with  the  Egyptians  and  other  African  peoples,  are 
quite  distinct  from  Lud  (x.  22),  the  Lydians  of  Asia 
Minor.  These  are  not  to  be  confounded  any  more  than 
the  Trojans  of  ancient  times  with  their  modern  name- 
sakes in  the  State  of  New  York,  or  the  Indians  of  Amer- 
ica with  those  of  southeastern  Asia. 

(3)  Or  tribes  may  be  of  mixed  origin,  and  so  are 
properly  traceable  to  different  lines  of  descent.  Thus 
Dillmann  ^  says  of  Sheba  :  "  It  is  a  matter  of  course  that 
a  people  with  such  an  extended  trade  had  stations  and 

'  Genesis,  5th  edition,  p.  182. 


ORIGIN    OF    NATIONS    (CH.    X.)  139 

connections  everywhere,  on  the  sea  and  on  caravan 
routes,  and  came  to  be  mingled  with  their  associates,  so 
that  thej  could  be  variously  connected  genealogically." 
And  Delitzsch,  commenting  on  x,  7,  says  to  the  same 
purport  of  Sheba  and  Dedan  :  "  Arab  tribes  of  Semitic 
origin  are  so  called  in  ver.  28  ;  xxv.  3  ;  but  there  is  no 
reason  for  denying  an  older  Cushite  stock  in  each  of 
these  Arab  trading  peoples."  In  like  manner,  in  expla- 
nation of  the  double  origin  of  Havilah,  he  says  :  "  It  is 
an  acknowledged  fact  that  migrations  of  Cushites  and 
Arabs  took  place  to  and  fro  across  the  Arabian  Gulf." 

The  mention  of  the  same  name  in  different  lines  of  de- 
scent accordingly  involves  no  discrepancy  in  the  cases 
named,  and  no  diversity  of  writers.  If  different  tribes 
bearing  the  same  name  are  of  diverse  origin,  or  if  the 
same  tribe  is  partly  of  one  race  and  partly  of  another, 
one  writer  surely  could  tell  the  tale  as  well  as  two. 

This  table  of  the  generations  of  the  sons  of  Noah  con- 
tains just  70  names,  not  reckoning  Nimrod  (ver.  8), 
which  is  the  name  of  a  person,  viz.:  14  descendants  of  Ja- 
pheth  +  30  of  Ham  4-  26  of  Shem  =  70.  This  was  also 
the  number  of  Jacob's  family  when  they  went  down  into 
Egypt  (Gen.  xlvi.  27  ;  Ex.  i.  5 ;  Deut.  x.  22),  a  number 
perpetuated  in  the  permanent  constitution  of  Israel  with 
its  57  families  ^  +  13  tribes,  as  well  as  in  the  representa- 
tive body  of  seventy  elders  (Ex.  xxiv.  1,  9  ;  Num.  xi.  16, 
24,  25).  The  families  of  Israel  are  thus  set  in  numerical 
relation  to  the  families  of  mankind,  which  are  to  be 
blessed  through  their  instrumentality  (Gen.  xii.  3).  This 
correspondence  seems  to  be  intimated  in  Deut.  xxxii.  8  : 
"  When  the  Most  High  gave  to  the  nations  their  inheri- 
tance, when  he  separated  the  children  of  men,  he  set  the 
bounds  of  the  peoples  according  to  the  number  of  the 
children  of  Israel."  It  is  frequently  remarked  upon  by 
'  Num.  xxvi. ,  not  reckoning  the  Levitical  families. 


140      THE   GENERATIONS   OF   THE   SONS    OF   NOAH 

the  rabbins,  as  in  the  following  passage  from  the  book  of 
Zohar :  '  "  Seventy  souls  went  down  with  Jacob  into 
Egypt,  that  they  might  restore  the  seventy  families  dis- 
persed by  the  confusion  of  tongues."  It  is  scarcely  sup- 
posable  that  the  seventy  names  in  Gen.  x.  can  be  for- 
tuitous.^ And  if  it  was  intentional,  the  unity  of  the 
chapter  is  a  necessary  conclusion  ;  for  it  is  only  in  the 
chapter  as  a  whole,  not  in  its  severed  portions,  that 
the  number  70  appears.  This  further  excludes  the  ar- 
bitrary conjectures,  which  have  nothing  whatever  to 
recommend  them,  that  the  clause,  "  whence  went  forth 
the  Philistines  "  (ver.  14),  and  the  names  of  the  Canaan- 
itish  tribes  (vs.  16-18a,  so  "Wellhausen,  Kautzsch),  are 
later  additions  to  the  text. 

The  high  antiquity  of  this  table  is  attested  by  the  fact 
that  several  names  familiar  in  later  times  find  no  place 
in  it.  Thus,  while  Sidon  is  mentioned  (vs.  15,  19),  there 
is  no  allusion  to  Tyre,  which  by  the  time  of  David  had 
already  outstripped  it ;  nor  do  such  names  occur  as 
Arabians  (Isa.  xxi.  13),  or  Minni  (Jer.  li.  27),  or  Persians. 
The  tribes  of  Moab,  Ammon,  Ishmael,  Edom,  Amalek,  as 
well  as  those  sprung  from  Keturah  and  from  Nahor,  are 

'  Quoted  by  Lightfoot,  Heb.  Exercit.  on  Luke  iii.  36. 

^  Fiirst  (Geschiclite  der  biblischen  Literatur,  i.,  p.  7)  and  Noldeke 
(Untersuchungen  zur  Kritik  des  Alten  Testaments,  p.  17)  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  descendants  of  Terah's  three  sons — Abi-aham,  Nahor, 
and  Haran — likewise  amount  to  70.  From  Abraham  the  12  tribes  of 
Israel;  16  of  Edom  (Gen.  xxxvi.),  viz.,  5  sons  (vs.  4,  5)  +  11  grandsons 
(vs.  15-17) ;  13  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xvii.  20  ;  xxv.  13-16)  ;  16  of  Keturah 
(Gen.  xxv.  1-4)  ;  from  Nahor,  12  (Gen.  xxii.  20-24) ;  from  Haran,  the 
2  sons  of  Lot  (Gen.  xix  36-38).  Total,  12  -i-  16  +  12  -f-  16  +  12  +  2  = 
70.  Such  a  repetition  of  this  number,  which,  even  where  it  is  not  ob- 
vious upon  the  surface,  yet  underlies  the  entire  scheme  of  the  geneal- 
ogies of  this  book,  adds  its  evidence  to  the  significance  attached  to  it 
by  the  writer ;  and  it  supplies  a  fresh  link  to  bind  together  in  unity  its 
component  parts,  and  to  show  that  they  have  all  proceeded  from  the 
same  hand,  and  that  they  cannot  be  distributed  between  P,  J,  and  R, 
as  is  done  by  the  critics. 


OEIGIN   OF   NATIONS    (OH.   X.)  141 

not  included  in  this  table,  because  their  descent  is  to  be 
stated  subsequently.  The  genealogies  of  Genesis  thus 
complete  one  another,  and  thereby  evidence  themselves 
to  constitute  together  one  general  scheme,  and  to  be 
from  the  same  hand  and  not  referable  to  distinct  sources, 
as  the  critics  affirm.  Aboriginal  races,  like  the  Emim, 
Anakim,  Eephaim,  Horim,  Zamzummim,  and  Avim 
(Deut,  ii.),  which  had  almost  or  quite  disaj)peared  in  the 
time  of  Moses,  are  of  course^  omitted. 

The  strange  conceit  of  Wellhausen,  and  adopted  from 
him  by  Budde,  Stade,  and  E.  Meyer,  that  the  three  sons 
of  Noah  primarily  denoted  three  different  populations 
which  tenanted  Palestine— Israel,  the  Canaanites,  and  the 
Philistines—  and  only  at  a  later  time  came  to  be  regarded 
as  the  progenitors  of  all  mankind,  is  very  justly  and  em- 
phatically set  aside  by  Dillmann  as  "so  utterly  devoid 
of  any  foundation  in  fact  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
enter  upon  it." 

MARKS  OF  p. 

The  linguistic  marks  of  P  in  ch.  x.,  according  to  Dill- 
mann are  : 

1.  The  title  "  these  are  the  generations ; "  but  this  is 
not  restricted  to  P  sections. 

2.  "  The  concluding  formula,  vs.  5,  20,  31,  32  ; "  but  the 
J  genealogy  (xxv.  4)  has  one  likewise. 

3.  "  Its  verbosity,"  which  simply  emphasizes  four  par- 
ticulars in  order  to  indicate  that  this  is  a  genealogy 
not  of  individual  men,  but  of  nations,  with  their /a7niUes 
or  tribal  divisions,  speaking  various  tongues  and  occupy- 
ing different  countries,  and  there  are  numerous  passages 
attributed  to  J  in  which  particulars  are  similarly  enu- 
merated in  detail,  e.g.,  vii.  7,  23  ;  xv.  19-21,  where  this  ad- 
mission is  only  escaped  by  assuming  interpolations  by 


142      THE   GENERATIONS    OF   THE   SONS   OF   NOAH 

E.,  xii.  16  ;  xxvi.  13,  14  ;  xxx.  32-35,  39,  43  ;  xxxii.  6,  8 

(A.  V.  vs.  5,  7). 

4.  " DrunS'llD'ab  after  their  families"  this  word  occurs 
eighty  times  in  the  Hexateuch,  and  in  a  slightly  altered 
orthography  on'^mnB'lO'Qb,  twice  more  ;  and  it  is  in  every 
instance  referred  to  P.  This  sounds  like  a  very  sig- 
nificant statement ;  but  as  soon  as  the  facts  in  the  case 
are  examined  it  appears  that  it  has  no  bearing  what- 
ever upon  the  question  of  a  diversity  of  documents. 
With  one  single  exception  it  is  exclusively  found  in 
connection  with  the  genealogies  of  nations  or  tribes 
(Gen.  X.  5,  20,  31  ;  xxxvi.  40  ;  Ex.  vi.  17,  25),  or  the  cen- 
sus of  the  tribes  of  Israel  (Num.  i.,  iii.,  iv.,  xxvi.),  or  the 
distribution  of  the  promised  land  among  the  several 
tribes  (Josh,  xiii.,  xv.-xix.,  xxi.).  And  the  great  body  of  all 
such  material  is  given  to  P.  Its  occurrence,  therefore, 
is  directly  traceable  to  the  subject-matter,  not  to  the  pe- 
culiarity of  a  particular  writer.  The  one  exception  is 
Gen.  viii.  18,  where  the  various  species  of  animals  that 
came  forth  from  the  ark  are  figuratively  denominated 
"  families."  The  same  form  of  the  word,  with  the  same 
preposition,  in  an  identical  meaning,  occurs  likewise  in  J, 
only  with  a  different  suffix ;  DDinnSTB^b  Ex.  xii.  21 ; 
ITinS'O'ab  Num.  xi.  10 ;  or  with  the  article  instead, 
ninSTCab  Josh.  vii.  14.  Apart  from  genealogies,  the 
census  and  the  apportionment  of  the  land,  or  laws  relat- 
ing to  it,  as  Num.  xxvii.  1-11 ;  xxxvi.,  and  Lev.  xxv.  (the 
return  to  family  possessions  in  the  jubilee),  the  word 
nnS'ffi'a  is  exclusively  found  in  J,  Gen.  xii.  3  ;  xxviii.  14  ; 
xxiv.  38,  40, 41  ;  Lev.  xx.  5  (J  according  to  Dillmann) ; 
Josh.  vi.  23  ;  vii.  14,  17. 

5.  "  The  prep,  s  in  vs.  5,  20,  32,"  which  is  certainly 
a  very  slender  string  to  hang  an  argument  for  diversity 
of  authorship  upon.  See  ch.  vi.-ix.  Marks  of  P,  No. 
28. 


TOWER   OF   BABEL   (CH.    XI.    1-9)  143 


MARKS  OF  J. 

The  marks  of  J,  besides  those  already  explained,  are : 

1.  "  ISBD  (ver.  18  as  ix.  19)  instead  of  mnss  P  (x.  5, 
32)  ; "  but,  as  Dillmann  on  ix.  19  admits,  the  words  are 
not  used  in  precisely  the  same  sense.  The  former  means 
to  be  dispersed  or  spread  abroad  ;  the  latter  to  be  divided, 
suggesting  the  idea  of  distinctness  or  separation.  More- 
over, the  word,  which  is  here  represented  to  belong  to  P, 
in  distinction  from  J,  elsewhere  is  found  almost  exclu- 
sively in  J,  viz.:  Gen.  ii.  10;  xiii.  9,  14;  xxv.  23;  xxx. 
40  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  8  ;  and  but  once  in  P  (Gen.  xiii.  11), 
where  it  is  cut  out  of  a  J  connection  by  a  critical  ma- 
noeuvre. 

2.  "  nasi  as  thou  comest  (used  as  an  adverb)  "  (vs.  19 
bis,  30)  ;  this  occurs  but  twice  elsewhere  (xiii.  10  J,  and 
xxv.  18,  which  the  critics  regard  as  a  gloss).  Such  cri- 
teria are  of  no  account. 


TOWER  OF  BABEL  (CH.   XL    1-9). 

It  is  alleged  that  xi.  1-9  cannot  be  from  the  same 
author  as  ch.  x.,  because  they  represent  quite  diiferent 
conceptions  of  the  cause  which  led  to  the  dispersion  of 
mankind  over  the  earth  ;  one  traces  it  to  the  simple  mul- 
tiplication of  the  race,  the  other  to  an  immediate  divine 
intervention.  Hence  Noldeke  assigns  ch.  x.  to  P  and 
xi.  1-9  to  J ;  Wellhausen,  who  finds  both  P  and  J  in  ch. 
X.,  attributes  xi.  1-9  to  J',  supposed  to  be  an  earlier 
stratum  in  the  document  J.  But  the  explicit  allusions 
to  Babel  and  to  the  dispersion  which  took  place  there,  in 
X.  10,  25,  shows  that  this  transaction  was  before  the  mind 
of  the  writer  of  ch.  x.  And  there  is  not  the  slightest  in- 
consistency between  the  two  passages.     The  writer  sim- 


144      THE    GENERATIONS    OF   THE   SONS    OF    NOAH 

ply  proceeds  in  cb.  xi.  to  detail  in  its  proper  place  an 
additional  fact  connected  with  the  peopling  of  the  earth. 

It  is  further  urged  that  there  is  in  xi.  1-9  no  mention 
of  Noah's  three  sons  and  their  descendants  as  in  ch.  x., 
but  simply  of  the  population  of  the  earth  as  a  unit.  To 
which  Dillmann  very  properly  rej)lies  :  "The  sons,  grand- 
sons, etc.,  of  Noah  can  very  well  be  regarded  as  in  the 
first  instance  united  in  one  place  and  forming  the  entire 
population  of  the  earth,  until  God  constrained  them  to 
disperse."  He  also  enters  a  caveat  against  a  misconcep- 
tion of  the  real  meaning  of  what  is  here  narrated  :  "  The 
author  does  not  say  that  the  manifold  languages  of  men 
now  came  into  existence  ready  made  on  the  instant ;  he 
only  fixes  a  point  of  time  at  which  the  divergence  of  na- 
tions and  languages  began.  Still  less  is  he  responsible 
for  the  conceit  of  the  later  Jews  and  of  the  church  fathers, 
that  Hebrew  was  the  original  language  from  which  the 
others  branched  off  in  consequence  of  this  confusion." 

Jehovah  is  the  only  divine  name  that  occurs  in  this 
section,  and  it  is  in  each  instance  appropriately  used. 
The  builders  at  Babel  are  frustrated  in  their  ambitious 
design  by  Jehovah  (xi.  5,  6,  8,  9),  in  the  interest  of  his 
purpose  of  mercy  to  the  world.  The  massing  of  the 
race  together  and  concentrating  them  in  what  must  have 
become  one  vast  ungodly  power  was  thwarted  by  scatter- 
ing them  over  the  earth.  In  x.  9  Nimrod  is  twice  spoken 
of  as  "  a  mighty  hunter  before  Jehovah  "  (comp.  vi.  11). 
Both  the  character  of  the  chapter  in  general,  and  the  con- 
nection of  this  verse  with  that  which  precedes  and  fol- 
lows, show  that  Nimrod  is  here  described  not  as  a  hunter 
of  wild  beasts,  but  as  a  conqueror  and  oppressor  of  men,^ 
and  the  founder  of  a  great  empire.     And  Jehovah  is  ob- 

'  Dillmann  refuses  to  admit  this  sense,  so  obviously  demanded  by  the 
context,  to  be  the  one  originally  intended,  and  is  obliged  in  consequence 
to  regard  ver.  9  as  an  interpolation. 


TOWER   OF   BABEL    (CH.   XI.    1-9)  145 

servant  of  all  his  schemes  of  conquest,  ready  to  limit  and 
control  them  in  the  interest  of  that  divine  kingdom 
which  it  is  his  purpose  to  introduce  among  men. 


MAEKS  OP  J. 

1.  "  nSTS  lip  (vs.  1,  6,  7,  9),  instead  of  ywh  tongue  (x.  5, 
20,  31)."  But  while  "lip"  may  be  used  for  "a  lan- 
guage "  in  the  singular,  the  plural  is  always  expressed 
by  "tongues."  Thus  Isa.  xix.  18,  "the  lip  or  language 
of  Canaan,"  but  Isa.  Ixvi.  18,  "  all  nations  and  tongues  ;  " 
Zech.  viii.  23,  "  all  tongues  of  the  nations,"  but  Zeph, 
iii.  9,  "  a  pure  lip  or  language."  Moreover,  if  the  same 
writer  can  vise  both  "  lip  "  and  "  tongue  "  in  this  sense 
in  the  same  sentence,  as  Isa.  xxviii.  11 ;  xxxiii.  19 ; 
Ezek.  iii.  5,  6,  why  not  on  successive  pages  ? 

2.  "  Jehovah  comes  down  from  heaven  "  (vs.  5,  7)  ; 
but  in  xvii.  22  ;  xxxv.  13,  passages  attributed  to  P,  it  is 
said  that  God  went  up  after  speaking  with  Abraham  and 
with  Jacob,  which  implies  a  previous  descent, 

3.  "The  etymology  "  (ver.  9).  But  allusions  to  the  sig- 
nificance of  names  are  likewise  found  in  P  (Gen.  xvii.  5, 
17,  19,  20).  It  should  further  be  observed  here  that  the 
sacred  writer  is  not  to  be  understood  as  giving  the  real 
derivation  of  the  word  Babel,  but  simply  as  noting  the 
very  significant  sense  suggested  by  it  to  a  Hebrew  ear. 
It  was  an  instance  of  a  nomen  et  omen.  Cf.  John  ix.  7, 
where  no  one  imagines  the  evangelist's  meaning  to  be 
that  the  pool  of  Siloam  derived  its  name  from  the  cir- 
cumstance which  he  relates. 


THE   GENERATIONS  OF    SEEM  (CH.  XI.  10-26) 
SHEM  TO   ABEAM   (CH.  XI.   10-26) 

The  table  of  descent  from  Shem  to  Abram  is  evi- 
dently constructed  upon  a  uniform  plan  with  that  in 
ch.  V.  from  i^dam  to  Noah,  giving  not  a  bare  list  of 
names  as  in  ch.  x.  and  in  the  side  lines  generally,  but 
stating  the  age  of  the  father  at  the  birth  of  the  son 
through  whom  the  line  is  continued ;  then  the  length  of 
his  life  after  the  birth  of  his  son,  with  the  mention  of  his 
begetting  sons  and  daughters  ;  and  after  running  through 
nearly  the  same  number  of  links  (one  ten,  the  other 
nine),  they  alike  terminate  with  a  father  who  has  three 
sons,  that  are  all  named  together  without  indicating  the 
intervals  between  their  birth.  The  only  difference  in 
their  structure  is  that  ch.  v.  sums  up  the  years  of  the 
life  of  each  patriarch,  while  ch.  xi.  does  not.  A  close 
connection  is  thus  established  between  the  genealogy  in 
ch.  V.  and  that  in  ch.  xi.,  showing  that  xi.  10-26  could 
not  have  constituted  a  genealogical  fragment  by  itself. 

It  is  manifestly  the  continuation  of  the  genealogy  in  ch. 
v.,  and  yet  it  could  not  have  been  joined  directly  to  it 
without  the  sections  which  now  intervene  ;  as  though 
what  was  once  a  continuous  genealogy  had  been  sun- 
dered, and  chs.  vi.-xi.  9  inserted  between  the  severed 
parts.  The  last  verse  of  ch.  v.  does  not  complete  the 
statements  about  Noah  in  the  regular  form  consistently 
pursued  throughout  the  genealogy,  so  that  the  next  term 


SHEM   TO   ABRAM    (CH.    XI.    10-26)  147 

in  the  genealogy  might  be  expected  immediately  to  follow. 
It  both  states  more  and  less  than  had  been  regularly 
stated  in  each  of  the  preceding  terms.  More,  in  that  it 
mentions  three  sons  instead  of  one,  leading  us  to  expect 
that  something  is  to  be  said  about  all  three ;  this  is  a 
preparation,  therefore,  for  the  narrative  of  the  flood, 
with  which  they  are  concerned,  and  also  for  the  table  of 
the  descendants  of  each  given  in  ch.  x.  This  verse  also 
states  less  than  was  customary  in  all  preceding  cases ; 
for  while  it  gives  the  age  of  Noah  at  the  birth  of  his 
sons,  it  does  not  state  how  long  he  lived  subsequently, 
nor  the  entire  length  of  his  life.  These  missing  state- 
ments are  found  in  what  follows  by  combining  vii.  6,  11, 
with  ix.  28,  29.  Ch.  xi.  10  also  implies  the  preceding 
narrative  of  the  flood ;  and  vs.  10-26  completes  the  ac- 
count of  the  descendants  of  Shem,  which  x.  21-31  (see 
particularly  ver.  25)  only  gives  in  part.  At  xi.  26  the 
genealogy  is  again  enlarged  in  the  same  way  to  intro- 
duce the  history  that  follows. 


VI 

THE  GENERATIONS  OF  TERAH  (CH.   XI.  27-XXV.  11) 

PEELIMINARY   REMARKS 

The  sixth  section,  which  extends  from  the  birth  to  the 
death  of  Abraham,  is  called  the  Generations  of  Terah, 
and  begins  with  a  restatement  of  his  three  sons,  precisely 
as  the  fourth  section  is  entitled  the  "  Generations  of 
Noah,"  and  begins  with  a  restatement  of  his  three  sons. 
As  this  latter  section  describes  the  fortunes  of  Noah, 
Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth,  so  that  now  before  us  is  occu- 
pied with  what  is  to  be  told  respecting  Terah,  Abram, 
Nahor,  and  Haran.  The  life  of  Abram,  who  is  the  prin- 
cipal figure  in  this  portion  of  the  sacred  narrative,  was 
for  some  time  united  with  that  of  Lot,  the  son  of  Haran, 
and  Abram's  son  Isaac  married  Eebekah,  the  grand- 
daughter of  Nahor. 

The  call  of  Abraham  (xii.  1)  is  related  to  the  promise 
to  Shem  (ix.  26),  as  its  initial  fulfilment.  In  Abraham's 
life  all  revolves  about  the  promised  land  and  the  prom- 
ised seed.  He  is  to  go  to  a  laud  that  the  Lord  will 
show  him,  and  become  the  father  of  a  great  people,  and 
all  the  families  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him.  As 
soon  as  he  arrives  in  Canaan,  the  Lord  tells  him  that 
this  is  the  land  and  that  his  seed  shall  possess  it.  Both 
of  these  particulars  are  further  defined  and  confirmed  in 
what  follows.  He  has  scarcely  arrived  in  Canaan  before 
he  is  obliged  to  leave  it  in  consequence  of  a  famine  (xii. 
10  sqq.),  and  go  to  Egypt.     This  is  a  trial  of  his  faith 


PRELIMIN^ARY   REMARKS  149 

in  the  future  possession  of  the  land.  Then  follows  the 
risk  of  losing  Sarah,  which  was  a  trial  of  his  faith  in  the 
promised  seed.  The  peril  is  averted  by  divine  interfer- 
ence, and  enriched  he  returns  with  Lot  to  the  land  of 
promise.  Lot  separates  from  him  (xiii.  5  sqq.),  though 
without  leaving  Canaan,  when  a  more  definite  promise 
is  made  of  giving  all  the  land  to  Abram  and  his  seed 
(vs.  14, 15).  The  land  is  invaded,  and  Lot  taken  captive  ; 
Abram  pursues  and  chastises  the  invaders,  rescues  his 
nephew,  and  is  blessed  by  Melchizedek,  king  of  Salem 
and  priest  of  the  Most  High  God  (ch,  xiv.). 

Meanwhile  Sarah  has  no  son,  and  the  prospect  is  that 
Eliezer  will  be  Abram 's  heir  (xv.  2  seq.).  But  he  is  as- 
sured that  it  is  not  merely  one  born  in  his  house,  but 
a  son  of  his  own  body  who  shall  be  his  heir,  and  whose 
posterity  shall  be  as  numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven, 
(vs.  4-6).  A  prospect  of  the  future  of  his  seed  is  shown 
him.  And  the  Lord  by  a  visible  token  ratifies  a  cove- 
nant with  Abram  to  give  his  seed  the  land,  and  definitely 
designates  its  dimensions  (vs.  7-21).  The  promise  of  the 
land  has  now  reached  its  utmost  solemnity  and  precision. 
Years  pass  on,  and  Sarah  abandons  all  hope  of  having 
children,  and  gives  her  maid  to  her  husband  ;  she  bears 
him  Ishmael  (ch.  xvi.).  At  length,  twenty-four  years 
after  Abram's  arrival  in  Canaan,  the  Lord  appears  to 
him  again  as  the  Almighty  God,  and  engages  that  Sarah, 
notwithstanding  her  advanced  age,  should  have  a  son  the 
very  next  year,  and  that  her  child,  and  not  Ishmael,  should 
be  the  promised  seed.  In  view  of  this  he  was  on  his  j)art 
to  enter  into  covenant  with  God  by  the  rite  of  circumci- 
sion, as  God  had  already  formally  entered  into  cove- 
nant with  him  (ch.  xvii.).  Both  the  contracting  parties 
having  thus  sealed  the  engagement,  it  is  finally  con- 
cluded by  a  meal,  of  which  the  Lord  partakes  in  human 
form  in  the  tent  of  Abraham.     And  the  confidential  in- 


150  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

timacy  to  wliich  the  latter  is  admitted  is  further  shown 
by  the  communication  to  him  of  the  divine  purpose  re- 
specting Sodom  (ch.  xviii.).  Then  follows  (ch.  xix.)  the 
destruction  of  Sodom  and  Lot's  deliverance,  and  the 
parentage  of  Moab  and  Ammon,  tribes  related  to  Israel 
and  in  their  vicinity  during  the  forty  years'  wandering, 
respecting  which  there  were  special  requirements  in  the 
law  presupposing  this  genealogical  statement  (Deut.  ii. 
9,  19) ;  so  that  the  history  of  Lot  is  preliminary  to  these 
injunctions.  At  the  court  of  Abimelech  Sarah  is  once 
more  imperilled,  and  is  divinely  delivered  (ch.  xx.).  Isaac 
is  born ;  Ishmael  must  give  way  to  him,  and  goes  with 
his  mother  to  the  wilderness  of  Paran  (xxi.  1-21).  God's 
blessing  upon  Abraham  is  recognized  by  Abimelech,  who 
solicits  his  friendship  (xxi.  22  sqq.). 

Then  comes  Abraham's  last  and  sorest  trial  in  respect 
to  his  son.  He  is  bidden  to  offer  him  up  to  God  on  the 
altar  (ch.  xxii.).  In  the  act  of  obedience  his  hand  is 
stayed,  Isaac  is  restored  to  him,  and  all  the  promises 
previously  made  to  him  are  repeated  in  their  fullest 
form,  and  confirmed  by  the  new  solemnity  of  an  oath. 
The  period  of  trial  is  now  over.  The  successful  endur- 
ance of  this  severest  test  of  his  faith  marks  the  culmina- 
tion of  Abraham's  life,  which  henceforth  flows  peacefully 
and  quietly  to  its  close.  The  account  of  Nahor's  family 
(vs.  20-24)  paves  the  way  for  the  subsequent  narrative 
of  Isaac's  marriage.  We  then  read  of  Sarah's  death,  and 
of  the  formalities  connected  with  the  purchase  of  a  bur- 
ial-place (ch.  xxiii.),  the  first  possession  in  the  promised 
land,  where  Sarah  and  Abraham  were  to  lie,  thus  even  in 
death  attesting  their  faith  in  this  sure  inheritance.  Then 
Rebekah  is  brought  to  be  the  wife  of  Isaac  (ch.  xxi  v.). 
This  is  followed  by  the  marriage  of  Keturah,  and  the 
names  of  her  sons ;  and  finally  Abraham's  death  and 
burial  (xxv.  1-11). 


THE  DIVINE  NAMES  151 


THE  DIVINE  NAMES. 

Throughout  this  section  the  divine  names  are  used 
with  evident  discrimination.  The  name  Jehovah  is  used 
in  ch.  xii.-xvi. ;  Elohim  does  not  occur  until  ch.  xvii., 
where  it  is  found  repeatedly,  and,  with  the  exception  of 
ver.  1,  exclusively.  It  is  Jehovah  the  God  of  the  chosen 
race  who  bids  Abram  leave  his  kindred  and  his  father's 
house  (xii.  1-4),  with  the  promise  to  multiply  his  seed 
and  to  give  him  Canaan  (xii.  2,  7  ;  xiii.  14-17) ;  to  whom 
Abram  erected  altars  in  this  land  and  paid  his  worship 
(xii.  7,  8  ;  xiii.  4,  18)  ;  who  guarded  Sarah,  Abram's  wife 
(xii.  17)  ;  who  noted  and  would  punish  the  guilty  occu- 
pants of  the  promised  land  (xiii.  10,  13 ;  xv.  16)  ;  to 
whom  Abram  appealed  as  the  universal  sovereign  (xiv. 
22),  while  to  Melchizedek  he  was  not  Jehovah  but  El 
Elyou,  God  most  High  (vs.  18-20) ;  who  appeared  to 
Abram  (xii.  7),  spake  to  him  (xii.  1,  4,  7  ;  xiii.  14 ;  ch. 
XV.),  and  covenanted  with  him  (xv.  18);  whom  Sarah 
recognized  as  directing  all  that  affected  her  (xvi,  2,  5)  ; 
who  cared  for  Hagar  as  a  member  of  Abram's  family 
(xvi.  7  sqq.),  though  in  the  mouth  of  this  Egyptian  maid 
(xvi.  13),  as  well  as  in  the  name  of  her  son  (xvi.  11,  15), 
we  find  not  Jehovah  but  El. 

It  may  be  asked,  why  is  it  not  still  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  the  chosen  race,  who  in  ch.  xvii,  enters  into  covenant 
with  Abraham  and  establishes  circumcision  as  the  seal  of 
that  covenant  and  the  perpetual  badge  of  the  covenant 
people  ?  It  is  Jehovah  who  appears  to  Abram  and 
forms  this  solemn  engagement  with  him,  as  is  expressly 
declared,  ver.  1.  In  doing  so  he  announces  himself  as 
the  Almighty  God,  and  the  reason  for  this  is  obvious. 
The  promise  of  a  numerous  seed  made  to  Abram  at  the 
outset  had  been  repeated  from  time  to  time  for  four  and 


152  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

twenty  long  years,  and  there  had  been  as  yet  no  indica- 
tion of  its  fulfilment.  Meanwhile  in  his  advancii)g  age 
and  that  of  Sarah  all  natural  hope  of  offspring  had  van- 
ished. The  time  has  now  come  when  his  persistent  faith 
shall  be  rewarded.  Nature  has  failed,  but  the  divine 
omnipotence  is  all-sufficient.  Isaac  shall  be  born  the 
next  year.  The  emphasis  here  laid  on  God's  almighty 
power  is  indicated  by  El  Shaddai,  God  Almighty  (ver. 
1),  followed  by  Elohim,  the  title  of  the  God  of  creation, 
throughout  the  interview  and  to  the  end  of  the  chaj)ter. 

It  is  Jehovah  again  in  ch.  xviii.  who  in  condescending 
grace  concludes  the  covenant  transaction  with  Abram  by 
becoming  his  guest,  and  in  the  familiarity  of  friendship 
admits  him  to  his  counsel  respecting  Sodom  and  accepts 
his  intercession  on  its  behalf;  and  who  still  further  (xix. 
1-28)  executes  the  purpose  which  he  had  disclosed  to 
Abraham,  of  purging  his  own  land  of  gross  offenders 
(cf.  xiii.  13 ;  xv.  16  ;  xviii.  20,  21).  Here  the  critics  claim 
that  xix,  29  is  a  fresh  account  of  the  destraction  of  Sodom 
and  the  rescue  of  Lot,  which  instead  of  relating  in  detail, 
as  in  the  previous  part  of  the  chapter,  despatches  all  in 
a  single  sentence,  using  Elohim  of  the  very  same  matter 
in  regard  to  which  Jehovah  had  been  before  employed 
throughout.     But — 

1.  This  verse,  instead  of  relating  the  overthrow  of 
Sodom,  presupposes  this  event  as  known  and  already 
narrated,  and  proceeds  to  declare  what  took  place  when 
it  occurred.  The  direct  course  of  the  narrative  had  been 
interrupted  (vs.  27,  28)  to  mention  Abraham's  early 
visit  to  the  scene  of  his  former  intercession,  and  what  he 
there  beheld.  Then  in  returning  to  his  narrative  the 
writer  sums  up  in  a  single  sentence  what  he  had  already 
related,  and  proceeds  to  say  what  further  became  of  Lot.^ 

'Thus  Gen.  ii.  1  recapitulates  the  work  of  the  six  days  (ch.  i.),  in 
order  to  connect  with  it  tlie  rest  of  the  seventh  day  (ii.  2,  3)  ;  xxxix.  1, 


THE   DIVINE   NAMES  153 

2.  The  reason  for  the  change  in  the  divine  name  is 
now  apparent.  In  the  paragraph  which  begins  with  this 
verse  and  extends  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  the  writer  is 
speaking  of  Lot,  now  and  henceforth  completely  severed 
from  Abraham,  and  removed  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
the  promised  land,  the  ancestor  of  Moab  and  Ammon,  to 
whom  God  is  not  Jehovah  but  Elohim,  as  to  all  outside 
of  the  chosen  race. 

In  like  manner  in  the  affair  of  Abimelech,  king  of  Ge- 
rar,  a  Gentile  prince  (ch.  xx.),  Elohim  is  the  proper  word, 
and  is  accordingly  used  throughout,  both  in  God's  deal- 
ings with  Abimelech  (vs.  3,  6,  17),  and  in  what  Abraham 
says  to  him  (vs.  11,  13).  Only  in  ver.  18,  where  the 
writer  introduces  a  statement  of  his  own  that  the  inflic- 
tion there  spoken  of  was  for  the  protection  of  Abraham's 
wife,  Jehovah  is  introduced  precisely  as  in  the  similar 
case,  xii.  17. 

The  birth  of  Isaac  recalled  alike  the  pledge  of  al- 
mighty intervention  and  the  gracious  promise  of  Abra- 
ham's God ;  hence  the  use  of  Jehovah  in  xxi.  1,  with 
special  reference  to  xviii.  10, 14,  and  of  Elohim  in  vs.  2, 
4,  6,^  with  reference  to  xvii.  10,  19,  21.  In  the  narrative 
of  the  dismissal  of  Hagar  and  Ishmael  (vs.  9-21)  Elohim 
is  used  throughout,  because  they  are  now  finally  severed 
from  the  family  of  Abraham  ;  whereas  in  xvi.  7-13,  while 
Hagar  still  belonged  to  his  family,  it  is  the  angel  of  Jeho- 
vah who  finds  her  in  the  wilderness,  and  sends  her  back  to 
her  mistress.     In  Abimelech's  visit  to  Abraham  he  nat- 

after  the  digression  of  ch.  xxxviii.,  sums  up  the  narrative  of  xxxvii. 
28-36,  on  returning  to  the  history  of  Joseph  ;  so  Ex.  vi.  28-30,  for  a  like 
reason,  repeats  vs.  10-12  ;  Ex.  xii.  51  repeats  ver.  41  ;  Judg.  iii.  4,  cf. 
ver.  1 ;  xxi.  8,  cf.  ver.  5  ;  1  Kin.  vi.  37,  cf.  ver.  1. 

'  Cf.  with  ver.  6  in  its  allusion  to  God's  almighty  intervention  in  con- 
trast with  natural  causes,  Eve's  language  at  the  birth  of  Seth  (iv.  25), 
with  Elohim  in  what  the  critics  consider  a  J  section  because  of  the  im- 
plied contrast  between  God  and  man. 


154  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

urally  speaks  of  Eloliim  (xxi.  22,  23),  Avhereas  in  Abra- 
ham's act  of  worshij)  he  calls  on  the  name  of  Jehovah 
(ver.  33).  In  ch.  xxii.  it  is  Elohim  who  puts  Abraham  to 
trial  by  the  command  to  offer  up  Isaac ;  it  is  Jehovah 
who  staj^s  his  hand.  God  the  creator  has  the  undoubted 
right  to  demand  of  his  creature  the  dearest  and  the  best ; 
but  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  revelation  and  sal- 
vation accepts  the  spiritual  surrender  and  spares  the 
child.  In  ch.  xxiii.  Elohim  occurs  but  once,  and  very 
properly  in  the  mouth  of  the  children  of  Heth  (ver.  6). 
Jehovah  guided  Abraham's  servant  in  his  search  for  a 
wife  for  Isaac  (ch.  xxiv.),  and  this  in  so  conspicuous  a 
manner  that  even  Laban  and  Bethuel  ^  recognize  the  hand 
of  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Abraham  in  the  whole  affair  (vs. 
50,  51),  and  address  the  servant  as  "  blessed  of  Jehovah  " 
(ver.  31).  In  xxv.  11,  "  after  the  death  of  Abraham  Elo- 
him blessed  his  son  Isaac."  Jehovah,  as  the  guardian  and 
benefactor  of  the  chosen  race,  would  certainly  have  been 
appropriate  here.  And  yet  Elohim  is  appropriate  like- 
wise, as  suggestive  of  the  general  divine  beneficence  and 
providential  goodness,  which  bestowed  upon  Isaac  abun- 
dant external  prosperity.  Such  bounty  is  by  no  means 
limited  in  its  exercise  to  the  chosen  race. 


THE   CRITICAL  PARTITION. 

The  constant  regard  to  the  distinctive  meaning  of  the 
divine  names,  as  this  has  now  been  exhibited,  must  be 
due  to  the  intention  of  the  writer.  It  cannot  be  the  ac- 
cidental result  of  the  combination  of  separate  Elohist 
and  Jehovist  documents.     Nevertheless  the  critics  un- 

'  So  the  heathen  mariners  call  upon  the  name  of  Jonah's  God  in  the 
tempest,  which  they  recognize  as  sent  by  him.  Tliey  cry  unto  Jehovah 
and  fear  Jehovah  (Jon.  i.  14,  16),  though  they  had  previously  "  cried 
every  man  unto  his  god,"  ver.  5. 


THE   CRITICAL   PARTITION  155 

dertake  to  parcel  the  contents  of  this  section  between 
P,  J,  and  E ;  and  in  so  doing  present  us  with  three  mu- 
tilated and  incoherent  narratives  instead  of  the  one 
closely  connected  and  continuous  narrative  which  we  have 
already  traced  in  the  text  as  it  lies  before  us. 

The  only  paragraphs  of  any  length  ascribed  to  P  are 
chs.  xvii.  and  xxiii.,  the  former  recording  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  the  latter  the  death  of  Sarah  and  the  pur- 
chase of  the  cave  of  Machpelah.  But  ch,  xvii.  is  closely 
linked  to  both  the  preceding  and  the  following  history. 
Thus  it  appears  from  xvii.  8  that  Abraham  is  in  Canaan  ; 
and  from  vs.  18-20  that  he  has  a  son  Ishmael,  who  is  not 
the  child  of  Sarah,  and  that  Sarah  is  shortly  to  have  a 
son  of  her  own.  And  the  Elohim  verse  (xix.  29)  speaks 
of  Lot,  to  whom  Abraham  was  attached,  and  who  dwelt 
in  the  cities  of  the  plain.  The  facts  thus  alluded  to  are 
all  recorded  in  full  in  the  accompanying  nan-ative,  of 
which  ch.  xvii.  and  xix.  29  are  thus  shown  to  form  com- 
ponent parts.  But  the  critics  seek  to  detach  them  from 
the  body  of  the  naiTative  by  singHng  out  scattered  verses 
here  and  there,  rent  from  their  proper  connection,  suffi- 
cient to  cover  these  allusions,  and  stringing  them  to- 
gether so  as  to  create  an  appearance  of  continuity  for  P 
here,  as  is  done  for  J  in  the  account  of  the  deluge.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever that  the  hypothetical  narrative  thus  produced  ever 
had  a  separate  existence  but  that  which  is  found  in  the 
vague  critical  criteria,  which  we  shall  examine  shortly. 
The  skeleton  life  of  Abraham  that  is  ascribed  to  P  is 
devoid  of  all  real  interest  or  significance.  It  is  stripped 
of  everything  indicative  of  character.  There  is  in  it  no 
exercise  nor  trial  of  faith  ;  no  act  of  piety,  or  generosity, 
or  courage ;  no  divine  purpose  ;  no  providential  dealing 
•with  him,  no  divine  communication  made  to  him,  except 
on  one  single  occasion  four  and  twenty  years  after  he 


166  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

had  entered  Canaan.  The  life  of  the  father  of  the  faith- 
ful, so  rich  in  the  most  important  spiritual  lessons,  is  re- 
duced to  a  jejune  and  barren  annalistic  record.  This 
the  critics  not  only  admit,  but  insist  upon  ;  they  tell  us 
it  is  the  fault  of  P.  He  has  no  taste  for  narrative  ;  he 
has  no  historic  sense,  and  no  interest  in  history,  but 
only  for  legal  facts  and  institutions,  dates  and  figures, 
and  unmeaning  lists  of  names.  It  is  not  disputed  that 
such  a  writer  is  abstractly  possible  or  conceivable; 
whether  there  is  proof  of  his  actual  existence  will  be 
considered  liereafter.  All  that  is  proposed  at  present  is 
to  state  the  critics'  own  conception  of  the  matter.  The 
document  of  P  in  the  section  now  before  us,  ajjart  from 
ch.  xvii.  and  xxiii.,  consists  of  these  few  scraps. 

xi.  27.  Now  these  are  the  generations  of  Terah. 
Terah  begat  Abram,  Nalior,  and  Haran ;  and  Haran 
begat  Lot.  31.  And  Terah  took  Abram  his  son,  and 
Lot  the  son  of  Haran,  his  son's  son,  and  Sarai  his 
daughter-in-law,  his  son  Abram's  wife ;  and  they  went 
forth  with  them  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  to  go  into  the 
land  of  Canaan  ;  and  they  came  unto  Haran  and  dwelt 
there.  32.  And  the  days  of  Terah  were  two  hundred 
and  five  years  :  and  Terah  died  in  Haran.  xii.  4b.  And 
Abram  was  seventy  and  five  years  old  when  he  departed 
out  of  Haran.  5.  And  Abram  took  Sarai  his  wife,  and 
Lot  his  brother's  son,  and  all  their  substance  that  they 
had  gathered,  and  the  souls  that  they  had  gotten  in 
Haran ;  and  they  went  forth  to  go  into  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan ;  and  into  the  land  of  Canaan  they  came.  xiii.  6. 
And  the  laud  was  not  able  to  bear  them,  that  they  might 
dwell  together  :  for  their  substance  was  great,  so  that 
they  could  not  dwell  together,  lib.  And  they  separated 
themselves  the  one  from  the  other.  12a.  xVbram  dwelled 
in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  Lot  dwelled  in  the  cities  of 
the  Plain,     xvi.  la.  Now  Sarai  Abram's  wife  bare  him 


THE   CRITICAL   PARTITION  157 

no  children.  3.  And  Sarai  Abram's  wife  took  Hagar  the 
Egyptian,  her  handmaid,  after  Abram  had  dwelt  ten 
years  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  gave  her  to  Abram  her 
husband  to  be  his  wife.  15.  And  Hagar  bare  Abram  a 
son :  and  Abram  called  the  name  of  his  son,  whom  Ha- 
gar bare,  Ishmael.  16.  And  Abram  was  fourscore  and 
six  years  old,  when  Hagar  bare  Ishmael  to  Abram. 
(Here  follows  ch.  xvii.  in  P.) 

xix.  29.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  God  destroyed  the 
cities  of  the  plain,  that  God  remembered  Abraham,  and 
sent  Lot  out  of  the  midst  of  the  overthrow,  when  he 
overthrew  the  cities  in  which  Lot  dwelt.  ^  xxi.  lb.  And 
[the  Lord]  did  unto  Sarah  as  he  had  spoken  2b.  at  the 
set  time  of  which  God  had  spoken  to  him.  3.  And 
Abraham  called  the  name  of  his  sou  that  was  born  to  him, 
whom  Sarah  bare  to  him,  Isaac.  1.  And  Abraham  cir- 
cumcised his  son  Isaac  when  he  was  eight  days  old,  as 
God  had  commanded  him.  5.  And  Abraham  was  an 
hundred  years  old  when  his  son  Isaac  was  born  unto 
him.     (Here  follows  ch.  xxiii.  in  P.) 

XXV.  7.  And  these  are  the  days  of  the  years  of  Abra- 
ham's life  which  he  lived,  an  hundred  threescore  and  fif- 
teen years.  8.  And  Abraham  gave  up  the  ghost,  and  died 
in  a  good  old  age,  an  old  man,  and  full  of  years  ;  and  was 
gathered  to  his  people.  9.  And  Isaac  and  Ishmael  his 
sons  buried  him  in  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  in  the  field  of 
Ephron  the  son  of  Zohar  the  Hittite,  which  is  before 
Mamre  ;  10.  the  field  which  Abraham  purchased  of  the 
children  of  Heth  :  there  was  Abraham  buried,  and 
Sarah  his  wife.  11a.  And  it  came  to  pass  after  the 
death  of  Abraham  that  God  blessed  Isaac  his  son. 

Wellhausen  ("  Prolegomena,"  p.  333)  thus  characterizes 

'  In  order  to  find  any  tolerable  connection  for  this  verse  it  is  neces- 
sary to  suppose  that  it  originally  stood  immediately  after  xiii.  12a,  and 
has  been  transposed  by  R  to  its  present  position. 


158  THE   GENERATIOlSrS   OF   TERAH 

the  document  P  :  "  The  individuality  of  the  several  nar- 
ratives is  not  merely  modified  but  absolutely  destroj^ed 
by  the  aim  of  the  whole.  The  complex  whole  leading 
up  to  the  law  of  Moses  is  everything ;  the  individual 
members  signify  nothing.  The  entire  material  thus  also 
itself  becomes  a  perfect  vacuity ;  apart  from  covenant- 
making  it  consists  only  in  genealogy  and  chronology." 
This  being  the  sort  of  material  that  is  attributed  to  P,  in 
distinction  from  J  and  E,  to  whom  the  narrative  pas- 
sages are  ascribed,  a  ready  explanation  is  at  once  sug- 
gested of  the  difference  of  style  and  diction,  upon  which 
such  stress  is  laid  as  though  it  indicated  diversity  of 
authorship. 

Wellhausen  also  calls  attention  to  another  fact  of  no 
small  importance  ("  Prolegomena,"  p.  311),  that  "  the  his- 
torical thread  of  P  runs  completely  parallel  to  the  history 
of  JE.  Only  thus  has  it  been  possible  to  incorporate 
these  two  writings  into  one  another,  as  they  lie  before  us 
at  present  in  the  Pentateuch."  He  further  shows  in  detail 
(p.  336)  that  this  coincidence  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
materials,  which  prevails  elsewhere,  characterizes  "also 
the  patriarchal  history ;  the  outline  is  the  same  in  P  and 
JE."  This  intimate  and  pervading  relation  leads  to  the 
inevitable  conclusion  that  these  cannot  be  altogether  in- 
dependent documents.  Thus  he  says  (p.  356) :  "  Wliat 
is  offered  us  in  P  is  the  quintescence  of  the  tradition,  not 
in  an  oral  but  in  an  already  written  form.  And  the 
written  shape  of  the  preliminary  history  which  is  used 
is  JE's  narrative  book.  The  arrangement  which  is  there 
given  to  the  popular  legends  ^  is  here  made  the  core  of 

1  In  Wellhansen's  esteem  the  sacred  history  hffore  Abraham  is  all 
myth.  The  patriarchal  history  is  legend,  containing  elements  of  truth. 
"No  historical  knowledge  about  the  patriarchs  is  to  be  gained  here, 
but  only  about  the  time  in  which  the  stories  about  them  arose  in  the 
people  of  Israel ;  this  later  time  is  here,  in  its  internal  and  external 


THE   CRITICAL   PARTITION  159 

the  narrative  ;  the  plan,  which  is  there  hidden  under  its 
detailed  treatment,  comes  out  here  sharp  and  distinctly 
marked,  while  agreeing  throughout,  as  the  main  matter 
of  the  whole." 

A  correspondence  so  remarkable  and  continuous  as  to 
permit  the  documents  to  be  dovetailed  together  in  the 
manner  alleged  by  the  critics,  certainly  makes  their  inde- 
pendent origin  quite  insupposable.  One  of  two  things 
must  be  true.  Either  one  of  these  documents  must  have 
taken  its  shape  from  the  other,  or  both  have  alike  taken 
their  shape  from  one  common  source.  Dillmann  admits 
J's  dependence  upon  E,  but  denies  that  of  P  upon  JE, 
alleging  that  their  apparent  coincidence  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  material  is  due  to  R,  who  in  combining  the  docu- 
ments made  P  the  basis,  and  transposed  the  contents  of 
JE  to  correspond  with  it.  These  transpositions  are 
merely  conjectural,  however,  and  are  of  no  weight  beside 
the  palpable  fact  of  the  identical  order  manifest  in  these 
supposed  documents,  as  they  lie  embedded  in  the  text 
before  us.  The  majority  of  the  critics  accept  the  former 
of  the  alternatives  above  stated,  that  of  the  dependence 
of  one  document  upon  the  other.     The  advocates  of  the 

features,  unconsciously  projected  back  into  a  hoary  antiquity,  and  mir- 
rors itself  there  as  a  transfigured  fancy  picture  "  (p.  336).  While  thus 
converting  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs  into  tribal  or  national  occur- 
rences of  a  later  period,  he  is  puzzled  what  to  do  with  Abraham. 
"  Abraham  is  certainly  not  the  name  of  a  people  like  Isaac  and  Lot ;  he 
is  on  the  whole  rather  incomprehensible.  Naturally  we  cannot  on  this 
account  regard  him  in  this  connection  as  a  historical  person  ;  he  miglit 
rather  be  a  free  creation  involuntarily  conceived.  He  is  likely  the 
most  recent  figure  in  this  company,  and  probably  only  prefixed  to  his  son 
Isaac  at  a  tolerably  late  period  "  (p.  337).  Unbelieving  critics,  as  a  rule, 
take  the  same  view  of  the  unhistorical  character  of  Genesis,  and  critics 
of  every  shade  of  belief,  who  accept  the  date  currently  assigned  to  J 
and  E,  in  so  doing  adopt  a  conclusion  based  on  the  assumption  that  the 
stories  respecting  the  patriarchs  are  not  records  of  actual  fact,  but  the 
inventions  of  a  later  period. 


160  THX  G-kA  kKATI03^S   OF  TZ^aZ 

old  snpplementaiy  hypGdie^s  bdd  tf>--'  7  ~ii  in  p<Dese&- 
a£m  of  P,  and  made  it  the  haas  of  his  worL  W-"/"  \.-- 
sen  and  ihey  that  fdlow  his  lead  aL.  :  P  was  in 

possessaon  of  J!E,  and  dliaped  his  pro«d;. ,  i- .  _  ^7  it  The 
odier  altematire,  howerer,  affozds  quite  as  re^v  an  ex- 
pLmafinn  of  the  eridfflit  relationship.  If  the  Pentateach 
is  ihe  original,  and  the  so-called  documents  are  i(s  ser- 
ered  payrts,  both  ^eir  agreement  in  the  general,  and  the 
seeming  disoepanoes  which  the  czitics  £mcy  that  thej 
discover.  wiQ  be  faOr  accoonted  for.  Which  ci  these 
altsnatiTes  is  the  true  one  may  be  left  undecided  f (r*  the 
present. 

The  narratives  ascribed  to  E  in  this  s^;-ri  :-n  are  <3is- 
connected  aneoiote*.  in  which,  pers^jns  figure  ~h :  i ;  - ; : 
bdong  to  ibe  chosen  race  :  as  foreign  princes  ~^  :  _     _  z_ 

Abraham  is  brought  into  contact  •  ch.  3aT..  so  I -_ 

XX. ;  xxL  ±2-32\  (ht  Hagar  and  Ishmael  in  th-^L  z     .       - 
partore  from  his  hoose   xxL  S-21},  and  a      :'    _     :     _ 
XTTJ.  relating  to  the  sacrifi^  ci  Isaac.     Here  i:  :  ~ 
that  the  eharacts*  of  ihe  passages  themselvr-     - 
the  nse  of  Elohim  in  th^n;  so  that  this  d'^e?  ::  ■         -t t 
the  a^nimption  of  a  separate  writer,  v^_  _- 

self  exdnsiTelT  with  recordhig  ir::^ 
foreigners,  and  one  solitaiT  dem  .    _ 

snifered  to  be  carried  into  execot  _  —  ^ned  to  be 

a  supreme  test  of  Abraham's  faiz-  _  :eiienoe.  All 
these  incidents  have  their  place  an  .  -  _  fs  in  the  life  of 
the  patriarch  as  a  whole,  but  sundered  from  the  rest  and 
t^en  br  themselves  they  lose  "  irf  significance 

and  value.    Itisjiotevenpretenl    .  :":iev  c:»Qstitnte 

a  ecNnplete  life  erf  Abraham,  or  a  connec :        _  :  JnnoiB 

naiiaiiie  of  any  sort     TheyfcRm   :_  -         '  '^rj 

account,  with  no  pzoper  beginning,  nc  1-^:        

and  no  governing  idea.    Only  two  direct         _ 
nications  to  Abr^iam  are  recorded,  one  twi.  L2»-   —   .  - 


NO   DISCREPANCIES  161 

ing  him  to  dismiss  Ishmael,  and  the  other  (xxii.  1),  to  sac- 
rifice Isaac.  Neither  of  these  cau  be  properly  understood 
in  their  isoh^tion  ;  and  the  ktter  especially  becomes  in- 
telhgible  only  as  the  cro\\Tiing  act  of  that  long-continued 
coui'se  of  divine  discipline  and  training  by  which  Abra- 
ham was  fitted  for  his  unique  position  as  the  father  and 
exemplar  of  the  chosen  people  of  God.  There  is  nothing 
in  these  so-called  E  paragraj)hs  to  suggest  that  they  were 
ever  grouped  together  in  a  separate  document.  And  it 
is  safe  to  say  that  such  a  notion  would  never  have  en- 
tered the  mind  of  any  one,  who  was  not  committed  to  a 
hypothesis  which  required  it. 

The  main  body  of  this  section,  all  of  it  in  fact  except 
the  portions  severed  from  it  for  P,  and  for  E,  for  reasons 
explained  above,  is  given  to  J.  The  predominant  use  of 
Jehovah  in  this  portion  of  the  history  is,  however,  plainly 
due  to  its  theme,  and  creates  no  presumption  that  there 
was  a  separate  writer  whose  characteristic  habit  it  was 
to  employ  it. 

NO  DISCEEPANCIES. 

It  is  alleged  that  there  are  discrepancies  in  the  state- 
ments of  P,  J,  and  E,  and  that  the  same  persons  and 
events  are  conceived  and  represented  differently.  This 
charge  is  based  upon  the  fallacy  of  making  the  part 
equal  to  the  whole,  or  of  identifying  things  which  are  dis- 
tinct. These  alleged  discrepancies  are  used  as  arguments 
for  the  critical  partition,  when  they  are  simply  the  conse- 
quences of  sundering  that  which,  taken  in  connection,  is 
entirely  harmonious. 

Thus,  1.  by  splitting  the  account  of  Abram's  migration 
a  variant  representation  is  produced  of  his  original  home, 
which  according  to  P  was  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  (xi.  31), 
while  J  is  said  to  locate  it  in  Haran  (xii.  1  ;  xxiv,  4,  7, 
10).  And  yet  xv.  7,  which  is  in  a  J  connection,  and  has 
11 


162  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

the  style  and  diction  of  J,  expressly  declares  that  Jeho- 
vah brought  Abram  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.^  But  crit- 
ics have  an  easy  way  of  ridding  themselves  of  testimony 
which  is  not  to  their  mind.  This  unwelcome  verse,  on 
the  sole  ground  of  its  annulling  a  discrepancy  which 
they  wish  to  create,  is  summarily  declared  to  be  an  in- 
terpolation by  R  with  a  view  to  harmonizing  the  con- 
flicting sources.  The  statement  of  P  (xi.  31)  clears  up 
the  whole  matter ;  Abram  went  first  from  Ur  to  Haran, 
and  thence  to  Canaan.  But  this  does  not  satisfy  Well- 
hausen,  who  suspects  that  it  is  only  an  effort  on  the  part 
of  P  to  harmonize  variant  traditions.  "  If  this  doubling 
the  point  of  departure  did  not  originate  from  the  purpose 
of  making  a  connection  with  JE,  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  harmonizing,"  ^  or  as  he  puts  it  in  his  first  edition,^ 
"  I  do  not  know  what  harmonizing  means."  The  critics 
may  be  allowed  to  settle  between  themselves  whether 
it  was  R  or  P  that  did  the  harmonizing  where  there 
was  nothing  that  needed  to  be  harmonized.'* 

2.  The  charge  that  in  J  (xii.  l-4a)  Abram  went  to 
Canaan  by  divine  direction,  but  in  P  (vs.  4b,  5) ,  of  his  own 
motion,  is   made  out  by   rending  asunder  a  statement 

'  See  Budde  :  Urgescliichte,  p.  439. 

^  Prolegomena,  p.  331. 

'  Geschichte  Israels,  p.  325,  note. 

*  The  expression  mji^  y"|j4  (xxiv.  7  ;  xxxi.  13)  is  used  interchange- 
ably with  tn^T)2l  fl!!*  (xxiv.  4  ;  xxxi.  3).  If  upon  the  critics'  own  hy- 
pothesis R  saw  no  difficulty  in  the  latter  being  used  of  Haran  (xii.  1), 
just  after  Abram's  migration  thither  from  Ur  had  been  spoken  of,  why 
should  any  difficulty  arise  from  J's  employing  both  these  equivalent 
expressions  of  Haran  likewise  ?  It  is  plain  from  xii.  1  that  they  can- 
not be  restricted  to  "land  of  nativity''  in  the  strict  sense,  but  are 
properly  employed  also  of  Abraham's  second  home,  the  land  of  his 
kindred.  See  Delitzsch  on  Gen.  xii.  1.  Budde  (Urgeschichte,  p.  441), 
who  equally  with  Dillmann  and  Wellhausen  imagines  a  contradiction 
in  the  case,  finds  it  to  lie  not  between  P  and  J,  but  between  the 
two  supposed  constituents  of  the  latter  document,  J'  which  makes  Ur 
Abram  s  original  home,  and  J'    which  makes  it  Haran. 


NO   DISCREPANCIES  163 

which   is   entirely  harmonious,  and  setting  its  divided 
parts  in  opposition. 

3.  It  is  said  that  in  J  the  promise  is  made  to  Abram 
of  a  land,  a  numerous  seed,  and  a  blessing  to  all  nations 
of  the  earth  (xii.  1-3  ;  xviii.  18  ;  xxii.  17,  18)  ;  but  in  P 
(xvii.  4-8),  simply  of  a  land  and  a  numerous  seed,  without 
any  intimation  of  a  blessing  to  extend  beyond  his  owai 
descendants.  But  this  is  simply  expecting  a  complete 
statement  in  one  which  is  designedly  partial.  In  the 
original  promise  and  in  the  renewal  of  it  upon  two  occa- 
sions of  special  solemnity,  one  when  the  Lord  signified 
his  approval  of  Abraham's  unfaltering  faith  by  coming  as 
his  guest  in  human  form,  and  again  as  a  reward  of  his 
most  signal  act  of  obedience,  the  blessing  is  set  before 
him  in  its  most  ample  sweep.  But  during  all  the  inter- 
vening period  of  long  expectancy  of  his  promised  child 
the  divine  communications  made  to  him  from  time  to 
time  were  designed  to  keep  alive  his  faith  in  that  particu- 
lar promise,  whose  fulfilment  was  so  long  delayed  ;  hence 
mention  is  merely  made  of  his  numerous  seed,  and  of  the 
land  which  they  were  to  occupy,  alike  in  xiii.  11-17  ;  xv. 
5-7,  18,  which  the  critics  assign  to  J,  and  in  xvii.  4-8, 
which  they  give  to  P. 

4.  It  is  claimed  that  according  to  J  (xii.  7,  8 ;  xiii.  4, 
18),  and  E  (xxii.  13),  sacrificial  worship  existed  in  the 
times  of  the  patriarchs  ;  while  P  makes  no  allusion  to  it 
until  the  time  of  Moses,  by  whom  in  his  opinion  it  was 
first  introduced.  But  this  is  attributing  to  distinct  docu- 
ments embodying  difierent  conceptions  of  the  patriarchal 
period  that  which  simply  results  from  the  distinction 
between  the  divine  names  Elohim  and  Jehovah.  This 
distinction  is  ignored  by  the  critics,  and  these  names 
treated  as  though  they  were  practically  identical,  when  in 
fact  they  represent  the  divine  being  under  different  as- 
pects.    It  is  not  Elohim,  God  in  his  general  relation  to 


164  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TEKAH 

the  world,  but  Jehovah,  as  he  has  made  himself  known 
to  his  own  people,  who  is  the  object  of  their  worship. 
Hence  Abrani  built  altars  to  Jehovah  (xii.  7  ;  xiii.  4,  18), 
and  called  on  the  name  of  Jehovah  (xii.  8 ;  xxi.  33)  ;  and 
all  passages  in  which  the  word  Jehovah  appears  are  for 
that  reason  uniformly  ascribed  to  J.  Their  absence  from 
P  is  due  to  the  principle  which  governs  the  partition, 
not  to  some  peculiar  notion  as  to  the  origin  of  sacrifice. 
In  xxii.  1  E  it  was  Elohim,  not  Jehovah,  who  bids 
Abram  offer  up  Isaac,  because  the  Creator  might  rightful- 
ly demand  of  his  creature  the  surrender  of  that  which  he 
had  given  him.  But  this  was  only  intended  as  a  test  of 
obedience.  Jehovah  did  not  desire  the  sacrifice  of  the 
child.  Accordingly  the  angel  of  Jehovah  restrained 
Abram's  hand  ;  and  the  ram  providentially  provided  was 
offered  up  instead  of  his  son  (ver.  13). 

Wellhausen  ("  Prolegomena,"  p.  359)  remarks  upon  the 
absurdity  of  the  conception  which  the  critics  have  sought 
to  fasten  upon  the  imaginary  author  of  the  document  P, 
that  "  religion  was  at  first  naturalistic,  then  became  some- 
what more  positive  byjumps,  and  finally  altogether  posi- 
tive in  the  year  1500  B.C.  How  is  it  possible  to  see 
historical  fidelity  in  the  representation  that  the  patriarchs 
could  slaughter  but  not  sacrifice ;  that  first  the  sabbath 
was  introduced,  then  the  rainbow,  then  circumcision,  and 
finally,  under  Moses,  sacrificial  worship  ?  "  The  ridicule 
here  directed  against  P  really  falls  upon  the  critics 
themselves,  who  are  the  sole  authors  of  this  glaring  ab- 
surdity. 

5.  In  P  (xiii.  6)  Abram  and  Lot  separate  for  want  of 
room  simply,  while  in  J  (ver.  7a)  it  is  because  of  the 
strife  of  their  herdmen.  But  this  is  merely  objecting 
that  the  part  is  not  equal  to  the  whole.  The  story  is 
arbitrarily  split  in  two.  The  lack  of  room  which  leads 
to  the  strife  is  given  to  P  ;  the  strife  which  results  from 


NO   DISCREPANCIES  165 

the  lack  of  room  to  J,     Each  part  implies  the  other  and 
is  incomplete  without  it. 

6.  J  (xii,  13,  19)  tells  of  Abram's  prevarication  about 
Sarai  (so  E  xx.  2) ;  Sarai's  quarrel  with  Hagar  (xvi,  6), 
(so  E  xxi.  10) ;  and  Lot's  incest  (xix.  30  sqq.) ;  while  P  nev- 
er mentions  anything  discreditable  to  the  patriarchs.  J 
speaks  of  angels  (xvi.  7-11 ;  xix.  1, 15  ;  xxiv.  7,  40) ;  so  E 
(xxi.  17  ;  xxii.  11)  ;  P  never  does.  J  tells  of  a  divine  com- 
munication in  a  vision  (xv.  1),  and  E  in  a  dream  (xx.  3, 
6)  ;  P  mentions  neither.  According  to  P  Abram  dwelt  in 
Mamre  or  the  region  of  Hebron  (xxiii.  2  ;  xxxv.  27)  ;  ac- 
cording to  E  in  Gerar  (xx.  1),  and  Beersheba  (xxi.  31). 
P  tells  of  his  purchase  of  the  cave  of  Machpelah  as  a 
burial-place  and  that  Sarah  was  buried  there  (ch.  xxiii.), 
and  Abraham  himself  (xxv.  9),  and  subsequently  Isaac 
and  Eebekah,  and  Jacob  and  Leah  (xlix.  31 ;  1.  13)  ;  but 
E  and  J  make  no  allusion  to  any  such  place  of  common 
burial.  There  is  no  real  discrepancy  in  any  of  these 
cases.  The  apparent  variance  is  created  solely  by  the 
partition  and  cannot  be  adduced  in  support  of  that  upon 
w^liich  it  is  itself  dependent. 

7.  It  is  said  that  different  versions  are  given  of  the  de- 
liverance of  Lot  from  the  overthrow  of  Sodom.  In  P 
(xix.  29)  he  is  saved  for  Abraham's  sake  ;  in  J  (xviii.  23) 
because  of  his  own  righteous  character.  In  P  he  was 
sent  out  of  the  midst  of  the  overthrow,  implying  that 
time  and  opportunity  were  afforded  for  escape  after  the 
destruction  had  begun;  in  J  the  destruction  did  not 
come  upon  the  city  until  after  Lot  had  left  it  (xix.  22- 
24),  The  apparent  variance  is  created  by  sundering  re- 
lated verses,  and  then  putting  an  interpretation  upon 
them  which  their  connection  forbids.  Even  on  the  crit- 
ical hypothesis  of  different  documents,  the  true  meaning 
of  each  must  be  preserved  in  their  combination,  if  E  is 
to  be  trusted.      God's  remembering  Abraham  (xix.  29) 


166  THE    GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

and  delivering  Lot,  is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  intercession 
of  the  former  (xviii.  23),  and  its  meaning  is  determined 
by  it.  God's  sending  Lot  out  of  the  midst  of  the  over- 
throw, when  he  overthrew  the  cities  in  which  Lot  dwelt, 
is  a  summary  statement  by  way  of  resumption  of  what 
had  been  narrated  (xix.  15-25),  and  it  must  be  under- 
stood accordingly. 

8.  According  to  xvii.  24,  25  ;  xxi.  5,  P,  Ishmael  was 
fourteen  years  old  when  Isaac  was  born  ;  yet  it  is  said 
that  (xxi.  14-20)  E  represents  him  after  this  as  a  young 
child  needing  to  be  carried  by  his  mother.  But  the  al- 
leged inconsistency  is  due  to  misinterpretation.  The 
LXX.  has  (xxi.  14),  "  and  he  put  the  cliild  on  her 
shoulder ;  "  and  Tuch  so  interprets  the  Hebrew.  Dill- 
mann,  however,  admits  that  this  is  not  the  meaning  of 
the  existing  Hebrew  text,  in  which  "  putting  it  on  her 
shoulder  "  is  parenthetic,  and  refers  only  to  the  bread 
and  bottle  of  water,  while  "  the  child  "  is  dependent  on 
the  previous  clause,  "  gave  unto  Hagar."  Delitzsch 
points  out  a  similar  construction  of  the  words  "  and 
Benjamin,"  in  Gen.  xliii.  15.  Dillmann's  conjecture  that 
the  reading  of  the  LXX.  is  the  original  one,  and  that  the 
Hebrew  has  been  altered  for  the  sake  of  harmonizing,  is 
gratuitous  and  unfounded.  Neither  does  "  she  cast  the 
child  under  one  of  the  shrubs  "  (ver.  15)  imply  that  he 
was  an  infant ;  Delitzsch  compares  Jer.  xxxviii.  6,  where 
Jeremiah  was  cast  into  a  dungeon,  and  Matt.  xv.  30, 
many  were  cast  at  Jesus's  feet  to  be  healed.  Nor  is  there 
any  such  implication  in  the  direction  to  Hagar  to  "  lift 
up  the  lad  "  (ver.  18),  who  was  faint  and  sick,  nor  in  the 
statement  (ver.  20)  that  he  "  grew,"  which  simply  means 
that  he  advanced  to  manhood. 

9.  The  statement  that  Sarai  was  so  fair  as  to  attract 
the  attention  of  Pharaoh,  to  the  peril  of  her  husband's  life 
(xii.  11,  15  J),  is  said  to  be  incompatible  with  xii.  4b  (cf. 


NO   DISCREPANCIES  167 

xvii.  17  P),  according  to  which  she  was  at  that  time  up- 
wards of  sixty-five  years  of  age.  And  it  is  said  to  be  still 
more  incongruous  that  she  should  have  attracted  Abim- 
elech  (xx.  2  sqq.  E),  when  (xvii.  17  P)  she  was  more 
than  ninety  years  old.  The  only  point  of  any  consequence 
in  this  discussion  is  not  what  modern  critics  may  think 
of  the  probability  or  possibility  of  what  is  here  narrated, 
but  whether  the  sacred  historian  credited  it.  On  the 
hypothesis  of  the  critics,  R  believed  it  and  recorded  it. 
What  possible  ground  can  they  have  for  assuming  that  J 
and  E  had  less  faith  than  E,  in  what  is  here  told  of  the 
marvellous  beauty  and  attractiveness  of  the  ancestress  of 
the  nation  ?  If  the  entire  narrative  could  be  put  to- 
gether by  R,  and  related  by  him  with  no  suspicion  of 
discord,  the  same  thing  could  just  as  well  have  been 
done  by  one  original  writer.  It  may  be  added,  if  it  will 
in  any  measure  relieve  the  minds  of  doubting  critics,  that 
Abimelech  is  not  said  to  have  been  taken  with  Sarah's 
beauty.  He  may  have  thought  an  alliance  with  "  a 
mighty  prince  "  (xxiii.  6)  like  Abraham  desirable,  even 
if  Sarah's  personal  charms  were  not  what  they  had  once 
been.  And  when  Abraham  lived  to  the  age  of  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five,  who  can  say  how  well  a  lady  of 
ninety  may  have  borne  her  years  ? 

10.  It  is  said  that  J  and  P  differ  in  their  conception 
of  God ;  J's  representation  is  anthropomorphic,  that  of 
P  is  more  exalted  and  spiritual.  But  the  two  aspects  of 
God's  being,  his  supreme  exaltation  and  his  gracious 
condescension,  are  not  mutually  exclusive  or  conflicting, 
but  mutually  supplementary.  Both  must  be  combined 
in  any  correct  apprehension  of  his  nature  and  his  relation 
to  man.  These  are  not  to  be  sundered,  as  though  they 
were  distinct  conceptions  of  separate  minds.  They  are 
found  together  throughout  the  Bible.  Since  Elohim  is 
used  of  God  as  the  creator  and  in  his  relation  to  the 


168  THE  genp:rations  of  terah 

world  at  large,  while  Jehovah  is  the  name  by  which  he 
made  himself  known  to  his  chosen  people,  his  chief  acts 
of  condescending  grace  naturally  appear  in  connection 
with  the  latter.  It  is  Jehovah  who  adopts  the  forms  of 
men  in  covenanting  with  Abram  (xv.  17),  and  who  enters 
into  familiar  intercourse  with  him  (xviii.  1  sqq.).  And 
yet  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah's  presence  in  smoke 
and  flame  (xv.  17  J)  has  a  precise  parallel  in  P  in  the 
cloud  and  fire  above  the  tabernacle  which  guided  Israel 
through  the  desert  (Ex.  xl.  36-38;  Num.  ix.  15  sqq.). 
Jehovah  appeared  to  Abram  three  times — twice  in  J  (xii. 
7  ;  xviii.  1) ;  once  in  P  (xvii.  1),  where  the  critics  say 
that  the  text  should  be  Elohim.  Jehovah  spake  repeat- 
edly to  Abram,  and  on  one  occasion  to  Hagar  (xvi.  13)  ; 
so  did  God  in  P  to  Abram  (ch.  xvii.),  to  Noah  (vi.  13  ; 
viii.  15),  and  to  the  first  human  pair  (i.  28).  If  it  is 
speaking  after  the  manner  of  men  when  Jehovah  speaks 
of  going  down  to  Sodom  to  see  how  they  have  done 
(xviii.  21),  it  is  no  less  so  when  Elohim  tests  the  obedi- 
ence of  Abraham  (xxii.  1),  a  passage  which  the  critics  as- 
sign to  another  than  P  ;  but  in  P  God  went  up  from 
Abraham  (xvii.  22),  which  implies  that  he  had  come 
down  to  speak  with  him. 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  critical  partition  of 
this  section  in  detail. 


THE   FAMILY   OF  TERAH   (CH.   XI.   27-32). 

The  critics  have  had  no  little  perplexity  in  disposing 
of  this  paragraph.  In  consequence  of  its  intimate  rela- 
tion to  ch.  xii.,  Astruc  assigned  it  to  J;  Eichhorn,  though 
with  some  hesitation,  gave  it  to  P.  The  majority  of 
critics  thenceforward  attributed  it  to  the  latter  document. 
Dillmann  did  the  same  in  his  first  edition  of  Genesis  ;  in 
his  second  edition  he  followed  Wellhausen  in  referring 


THE   FAMILY   OF   TERAH   (ClI.    XI.   27-32)  169 

ver.  29  to  J  and  the  rest  to  P,  ver.  30  being  supposed  to 
belong  originally  at  the  beginning  of  ch.  xvi.,  and  to 
have  been  transferred  thence  by  R ;  in  his  third  edition 
he  followed  Budde  and  Hupfeld  in  assigning  vs.  27,  31, 
32,  to  P,  and  vs.  28-30  to  J.  The  critical  embarrassment 
arises  from  the  circumstance  that  while  all  parts  of  the 
paragraph  are  knit  together  in  inseparable  unity,  they 
are  at  the  same  time  linked  to  what  precedes  and  follows 
with  an  entire  disregard  of  the  critical  severance,  being 
bound  alike  to  passages  referred  to  P  and  to  J.  Thus, 
ver.  27  repeats  the  last  words  of  the  preceding  genealogy, 
as  is  done  at  the  opening  of  a  new  section  (vi.  10 ;  xxv. 
19)  ;  and  ver.  32  sums  up  the  life  of  Terah  in  the  terms 
of  the  genealogy  of  ch.  v.,  as  is  done  in  the  case  of  Noah 
(ix.  29).  It  is  clear  that  vs.  27,  32,  are  from  the  same 
hand  as  the  genealogies  of  chs.  v.  andxi.,  which  they  con- 
tinue and  complete  ;  they  are  accordingly  held  to  belong 
to  P.  So  is  ver.  31,  whose  phraseology  is  identical  with 
that  of  xii.  5,  which  the  critics  for  reasons  to  be  consid- 
ered hereafter  find  it  convenient  to  refer  to  P,  though  it 
is  cut  out  of  a  J  connection,  to  which  it  manifestly  be- 
longs. 

On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  latest  conclusions 
of  the  critics,  vs.  28-30  belong  to  J ;  ver.  28  since  "  land 
of  his  nativity  "  is  reckoned  a  J  phrase  ;  ver.  29  because 
it  is  preliminary  to  xxii.  20  sqq.  J,  although  xxv.  20  P 
requires  the  assumption  that  P  must  here  or  elsewhere 
have  given  a  similar  account  of  Eebekah's  descent  from 
Bethuel  and  Nalior,  which  R  has  not  preserved ;  ver.  30 
because  it  would  be  premature  in  P  before  ch.  xvi., 
whereas  it  is  appropriate  in  J  as  preliminary  to  chs.  xii., 
xiii.,  and  especially  xv.  2,  3.  And  yet  this  paragraph 
cannot  be  torn  asunder  as  the  critics  propose.  For  vs. 
28,  29  presuppose  ver.  27,  and  are  abrupt  and  unex- 
plained  without   it ;  and  ver.  31  implies   the   previous 


170  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

statement  of  Abram's  marriage  (ver.  29),  and  needs  ver. 
28  to  explain  why  Lot  went  with  Terah  without  his 
father ;  and  ver.  30  follows  naturally  and  properly  after 
ver.  29  with  the  mention  of  a  fact  at  the  outset,  upon 
which  the  life  of  Abraham  so  largely  turned.  Moreover, 
the  portion  assigned  to  J  (vs.  28-30)  is  not  only  without 
any  j)roper  beginning,  but  severed  from'  ver.  31  fails  to 
explain  the  fact  assumed  in  ch.  xxiv.  J,  that  Abram's 
former  home  was  in  Mesopotamia  and  that  other  de- 
scendants of  Terah  were  settled  there.  How  the  home 
of  Abram's  ancestors  came  to  be  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees 
(xi.  31),  when  the  ark  landed  on  the  mountains  of  Ara- 
rat (viii.  4  P),  and  Terah's  descendants  are  subsequently 
found  in  Haran  and  Canaan,  is  a  puzzle  in  P.  This  has 
led  Dillmann  and  others  to  fancy  that  Ur  of  the  Chaldees 
lay  in  Mesopotamia,  in  spite  of  its  name  and  its  posi- 
tive monumental  identification,  or  else  that  it  has  been 
interpolated  in  this  verse  by  R.  The  puzzle  is  entirely 
of  the  critics'  own  creation.  The  missing  link,  which 
explains  the  course  of  migration,  is  found  in  xi.  1-9, 
which  is  attributed  to  J ;  and  the  whole  trouble  arises 
from  sundering  this  from  P,  in  which  it  is  indispensa- 
ble. Dillmann's  assertion  that  if  Ur  lay  in  Chaldea,  this 
must  have  been  inserted  in  ver.  31  by  R  in  order  to  con- 
nect it  with  xi.  1-9,  simply  amounts  to  a  confession  of 
the  real  nexus  in  the  case,  introduced  not  by  R  but  by 
the  original  writer. 

Still  further,  the  occurrence  of  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees," 
both  in  ver.  28  J  and  in  ver.  31  P,  annihilates,  on  the 
critics'  own  showing,  the  alleged  discrepancy  between 
these  imaginary  docviments  as  to  Abram's  original  home, 
the  fallacy  of  which  has  been  remarked  upon  before.  It 
is  here  bolstered  up  by  assuming  that  these  words  do 
not  properly  belong  in  ver.  28,  but  have  been  inserted  by 
R. 


CALL    OF   ABRAM    AND   HIS   JOURNEYS    (CH.    XII.)      171 


THE   CALL  OF   ABRAM  AND   HIS   JOURNEYS   (CH.    XD.). 

The  critics  endeavor  to  make  a  show  of  continuity  for 
P  in  the  history  of  Abraham,  as  has  before  been  stated, 
by  picking  out  a  sentence  here  and  there  from  chs.  xii.- 
xvi.,  sundering  it  from  its  connection  and  transferring  it 
to  P,  while  the  body  of  these  chapters  is  given  to  J. 
But  they  have  no  better  reason,  and  are  no  more  suc- 
cessful in  this  than  in  their  attempt  to  establish  the  con- 
tinuity of  J  in  the  narrative  of  the  flood.  In  order  to 
bridge  the  chasm  from  ch.  xi.  to  ch.  xvii.,  six  verses  and 
parts  of  three  others,  referring  to  the  principal  events 
that  had  taken  place  in  the  interval,  are  rent  from  their 
proper  context  and  claimed  for  P,  viz.,  Abram's  removal 
from  Haran  to  the  land  of  Canaan  (xii.  4b,  5) ;  his  sep- 
aration from  Lot  (xiii.  6,  lib,  12a) ;  his  connection  with 
Hagar  (xvi.  1,  3)  ;  and  the  birth  of  Ishmael  (vs.  15,  16). 
These  verses  and  clauses  fit  perfectly  in  their  context, 
and  no  one  would  ever  dream  that  they  had  been  in- 
serted from  another  document,  but  for  the  necessity  laid 
upon  the  critics  to  discover  something  that  could  be  at- 
tributed to  P,  which  might  explain  the  situation  in  ch. 
xvii.,  viz.,  Abraham's  presence  in  Canaan  (ver.  8) ;  his 
son  Ishmael  (vs.  18,  20),  born  thirteen  years  before  (ver. 
25),  though  Sarah  had  no  child  (vs.  17,  19) ;  as  well  as 
Lot's  abode  in  the  cities  of  the  Plain  (xix,  29).  But 
notwithstanding  this  urgent  motive,  Ilgen  (1798)  is,  so 
far  as  I  know,  the  only  critic  prior  to  Hupfeld  (1853) 
who  could  find  any  indication  of  P  in  chs.  xiii.,  xv.,  xvi. 
Astruc,  Eichhorn,  Gramberg,  Stahelin,  Delitzsch  (1st 
edition),  and  even  Vater,  with  his  fragmentary  procliv- 
ities, were  equally  unable  to  sunder  anything  from  ch. 
xii.  Tuch  (1838)  suggested  doubtfully  in  his  exposition, 
though  with  more  confidence  in  the  introduction  to  his 


1'72  THE  GENERATIONS   OF  TERAH 

"  Commentary,"  that  xii.  5  belonged  to  P  on  a  ground 
which  subsequent  critics  have  annulled,  viz.,  its  resem- 
blance to  xxxvi.  6  and  xlvi.  6,  which  are  in  a  context  re- 
ferred by  him  to  P,  but  denied  by  others  to  be  his.' 

The  critics  divide  this  chapter  as  follows  :  J,  xii.  l-4a, 
6-9,  10-20  ;  P,  vs.  -ib,  5.  Knobel  refers  vs.  6,  8a,  9,  to 
P  ;  Schrader  to  E ;  Kittel  also  to  E,  though  ascribing 
vs.  6-9  in  its  present  form  to  J.  Wellhausen  and  Kue- 
neu  make  ver.  9  an  insertion  by  R.  Schrader,  Well- 
hausen, Kuenen  regard  vs.  10-20  as  a  later  addition  to 
J ;  Dillmanu,  Kittel,  as  belonging  to  J,  but  transposed 
from  their  original  position  after  ch.  xiii. 

THE   CALL   OF  ABRAM    (CH.    XII.    1-9). 

P's  account  of  Abram's  removal  from  Haran  begins 
abruptly  (xii.  4b),  and  in  a  manner  that  implies  that 
something  is  missing.  The  statement  that  "  Abram  was 
seventy  and  five  years  old  when  he  departed  out  of 
Haran,"  presupposes  that  this  departure  had  been  al- 
ready mentioned.     And  so  in  fact  it  is  in  what  immedi- 

'  An  apt  illustration  is  here  afforded  of  tlie  facility  with  which  critics, 
by  slightly  shifting  the  lines  of  division,  can  serve  the  purpose  wliich 
they  have  in  view,  or  can  alter  the  complexion  of  the  alleged  docu- 
ments with  which  they  are  dealing.  Tuch  (Genesis,  p.  xliii,  note)  was 
inclined  to  assign  xii.  5,  6,  8  ;  xiii.  18  to  P.  This  would  account  for 
the  place  of  Sarahs  death  and  burial  (xxiii.  2,  19),  which  otherwise 
there  is  nothing  in  P  to  explain.  Knobel  reaches  a  like  result  by  giv- 
ing P  xii.  4b,  5,  C,  8a,  9.  The  connection  in  .T  was  thus  broken,  but 
that  was  no  objection  on  the  supplementary  hypothesis,  of  which  they 
were  advocates,  that  J  was  not  an  independent  document,  but  con- 
sisted of  sections  and  paragraphs  added  to  P.  Schrader  gives  vs.  6a, 
8a,  9,  to  E,  on  the  ground  that  one  from  the  northern  kingdom,  as  he  is 
assumed  to  be,  would  feel  more  interest  in  associating  Abram  with  She- 
chem  and  Bethel,  than  J  from  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  Dillmann  ob- 
jects that  6b  and  8b  cannot  be  separated  from  6a  and  8a.  an  objection 
equally  valid,  as  is  shown  in  the  text,  against  his  own  removal  of  ver. 
5,  which  is  a  necessary  link  between  ver.  4  and  ver   6. 


THE   CALL   OF    ABEAM   (CH.    XII.    1-9)  173 

ately  precedes  (vs.  l-4a).  But  this,  we  are  told,  belongs 
to  J.  So  that  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  the  prelim- 
inary part  of  P's  narrative  has  been  omitted,  and  these 
verses  from  J  substituted  for  it.  The  attempt  has  been 
made  to  confirm  this-  by  alleging  that  a  special  title, 
"  These  are  the  generations  of  Abram,"  must  originally 
have  stood  at  the  beginning  of  Abram's  life  ^  in  P,  as  in 
the  case  of  Isaac  (xxv.  19),  and  Jacob  (xxxvii.  2),  since  a 
separate  section  must  have  been  devoted  to  this  greatest 
of  the  patriarchs,  instead  of  including  him  under  "  the 
generations  of  Terah,"  who  is  of  much  less  account,  and 
whose  life  is  brought  to  a  formal  close  in  the  preceding 
chapter  (xi.  32)  ;  but  that  R,  in  replacing  the  opening 
words  of  P  by  those  of  J,  dropped  the  title  of  the  former 
as  well.  Plausible  as  this  may  sound,  it  is  clearly  a  mis- 
take.    For — 

1.  Even  if  such  a  substitution  had  been  made,  it  would 
not  account  for  the  omission  of  the  title,  had  it  been  ap- 
propriate and  originally  stood  there  ;  for  like  titles  occur 
at  the  head  of  sections  which  are  wholly  J's  (ii.  4),  or  in 
whose  opening  chapters  there  is  not  a  single  sentence 
from  P  (xxxvii.  2). 

2.  The  proper  title  of  this  section  is  "  the  generations" 
not  of  Abram  but  "  of  Terah,"  since  it  deals  not  only  with 
Abram  but  other  descendants  of  Terah  as  well,  who  are 
accordingly  for  this  reason  introduced  to  the  reader  at 
the  outset  (xi.  27,  29),  viz.,  Lot,  who  journeyed  with 
Abram  to  Canaan,  and  Nahor,  whose  descendants  are  re- 
cited without  a  separate  title  (xxii.  20-24\  preparatory 
to  the  marriage  of  Isaac  into  this  family  of  his  kin- 
dred (ch.  xxiv.).  Bruston  suggests  that  these  last  should 
have  had  a  special  title,   "  the    generations   of   Nahor," 

'  So  Kiiobel,  Wellhausen,  Dilhnann,  and  others,  following  a  sugges- 
tion of  Ewald  in  his  review  of  Delitzsch  ou  Genesis  in  his  Jahrbiicher  d. 
Bibl.  Wisseuschaft  for  1851-52,  p.  40. 


174  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

and  been  inserted  at  the  close  of  ch.  xi.  No  doubt  the 
author  might  have  disposed  his  matter  differently,  and 
included  it  under  different  titles,  if  he  had  seen  fit  to 
do  so.  But  the  question  is  not  what  he  might  have  done, 
nor  what  in  the  opinion  of  the  critics  he  ought  to  have 
done,  but  what  he  actually  did. 

3.  While  it  is  true  that  in  several  instances  the  sections 
of  Genesis  terminate  with  the  death  of  the  person  named 
in  the  title,  this  is  not  necessarily  nor  invariably  the 
case,  e.g.,  the  generations  of  Adam  (ch.  v.).  "  The  gener- 
ations of  Terah  "  are  not  occupied  with  the  life  of  Terali, 
which  is  only  the  starting-point.  The  aim  of  the  section 
is  to  trace  the  fortunes  of  the  three  families  sprung  from 
him,  so  far  as  they  came  within  the  proper  scope  of  the 
sacred  history.  The  limitation  of  this  section  to  xi.  27- 
32  makes  it  altogether  unmeaning.  It  becomes  still 
more  glaringly  so  on  the  critical  hypothesis  that  vs.  28- 
30  are  from  a  different  document  J,  and  do  not  belong  to 
the  section  in  its  original  form  in  P ;  a  view  of  which 
Dillmann  justly  said,  in  his  first  edition,  one  can  then  see 
no  reason  for  a  Terah  section  at  all. 

4.  The  generations  of  Abram  would  be  an  unsuitable 
designation  of  a  history,  the  emphasis  and  interest  of 
which  for  several  successive  chapters  turns  uj)on  the  pa- 
triarch's childlessness. 

5.  That  this  entire  section  is,  in  the  intention  of  the 
author,  included  under  the  title  "  the  generations  of  Te- 
rah," not  of  Abram,  further  appears  from  the  opening 
of  the  next  section  (xxv.  19),  where  the  genealogy  is 
linked  directly  with  xi.  27,  32,  by  beginning  "  Abraham 
begat  Isaac." 

No  title  has  been  dropjDed,  therefore,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  ch.  xii. ;  consequently  no  presumption  can  be 
drawn  from  that  source  in  favor  of  different  narrators. 
It  may  be  added  that  as  xii.  4b  requires  4a  to  make  it  in- 


THE   CALL   OF   ABRAM    (CH.    XII.    1-9)  175 

telligible,  and  this  is  indissolublj  bound  to  vs.  1-3,  so 
xii.  1  is  linked  as  firmly  witli  the  preceding  chapter.  J's 
account  cannot  have  begun  with  ch.  xii.  Dillmann  (1st  ed.), 
nor  with  xi.  29  Dillmann  (2nd),  nor  with  xi.  28  Dillmann 
(3rd),  for  in  each  case  Abram  is  introduced  abruptly 
and  without  explanation ;  and  xi.  27  P  is  required  to 
precede  them.  Thus  P  is  linked  with  J,  and  J  with  P, 
each  dependent  on  the  other  to  supply  the  needed  ex- 
planation of  w^hat  it  contains,  neither  complete  without 
the  other,  both  fittmg  accurately  together  and  precisely 
filling  each  other's  gaps.  Is  this  harmonious  production 
a  piece  of  patchwork  ?  Can  extracts  from  wholly  inde- 
pendent documents  be  made  to  match  in  this  manner, 
however  skilfully  arranged  ?  And  how  do  those  repeated 
omissions,  now  from  one  document,  now  from  the  other, 
which  must  of  necessity  be  assumed  by  the  advocates  of 
the  current  critical  hypothesis,  comport  with  what  is  al- 
leged of  the  conduct  of  R  elsewhere,  his  concern  to  pre- 
serve the  briefest  and  most  scanty  statements  of  his 
sources,  even  when  they  add  nothing  to  fuller  narratives 
drawn  from  elsewhere,  the  insertion  being  detected  by  its 
being  a  superfluous  and  unmeaning  duplication?  (Cf. 
vii.  7-9  with  vs.  13-16 ;  ix.  18,  19 ;  xiii.  6,  lib,  12a ;  xis. 
29.) 

MARKS   OF  P. 

The  reference  of  xii.  4b,  5,  to  P  is  argued  by  Hupfeld 
and  others  on  the  following  grounds  : 

(1)  Because  ver.  5  repeats  4:a.     But — 

a.  This  is  no  mere  identical  and  superfluous  repetition. 
A  general  statement  of  obedience  to  the  divine  command 
(ver.  4a)  is  followed  by  a  more  particular  account  of 
what  was  done  in  accordance  wdth  it  (ver.  5).  Nothing  is 
more  common  in  the  Hebrew  historians  than  brief  sum- 
maries of  this  sort  followed  by  fuller  and  more  specific 


176  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TEKAII 

details,  where  no  one  imagines  that  there  is  a  diversity 
of  writers.  So  Gen.  vii.  5,  7  sqq.;  xxxvii.  5-8 ;  xli.  45c, 
46b ;  xlii.  19,  20c,  24c,  26  sqq. ;  Judg.  iv.  15c,  17  ;  1  Sam. 
xvii.  49,  50 ;  2  Sam.  xv.  16a,  17  ;  2  Kin.  xi.  16c,  20b. 

b.  Verse  5  is  indispensable  to  make  the  connection 
between  vs.  4a  and  6.  In  4a  Abram  goes  forth,  it  is  not 
said  whither.  In  ver.  6  he  is  already  in  Canaan  and 
j)assing  through  it.  It  is  presupposed  that  he  had  ar- 
rived there,  and  that  the  name  of  the  country  has  been 
made  known  to  the  reader  and  need  not  be  repeated. 
But  the  missing  statements  on  these  points  are  only 
found  in  ver.  5. 

(2)  xii.  5b  is  parallel  to  xi.  31b,  and  evidently  its  con- 
tinuation. 

This  is  unhesitatingly  admitted,  and  is  quite  consistent 
with  the  unity  of  the  book,  of  which  it  is  a  natural  se- 
quence. 

(3)  Yerse  5  has  words  and  phrases  peculiar  to  P.  The 
following  instances  are  adduced,  viz. : 

1.  njj^n  took,  as  in  xi.  31 ;  xxxvi.  6  ;  xlvi.  6.  But  it  is 
used  in  precisely  the  same  manner  in  J  (xxiv.  51  ;  xxxii. 
23,  24  (E.  v.,  vs.  22,  23)  ;  xliii..l3  ;  xlvii.  2);  and  in  E. 
(xx.  14 ;  xxii.  3 ;  xlv.  18,  19). 

2.  ti^Dn  substance,  goods,  and  iCD'n  to  get,  gailier,  are 
claimed  as  undoubted  characteristics  of  P,  but,  as  it 
would  appear,  on  very  slender  grounds.  The  verb  and 
noun  occur  together  in  four  passages  (Gen.  xii.  5 ;  xxxi. 
18 ;  xxxvi.  6,  7  ;  xlvi.  6) ;  and  the  noun  alone  in  six  other 
places  in  Genesis,  and  twice  besides  in  the  rest  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  critics  themselves  refer  it  six  times  to 
another  than  P  (Gen.  xiv.  11,  12,  16,  21 ;  xv.  14  ;  Num. 
xvi.  32).  Once,  and  once  only,  it  stands  in  a  context  by 
common  consent  referred  to  P  (Num.  xxxv.  3).  In  every 
other  instance  the  verse  or  paragraph  in  which  it  is 
found  is  cut  out  of  a  J  or  E  context,  or  one  of  disputed 


THE   CALL   OF   ABRAM    (CH.    XH.    1-9)  177 

origin,  and  is  assigned  to  P  mainly  because  of  this  very 
word  which  is  arbitrarily  assumed  to  belong  to  him. 

3.  tJSD  person,  is  not  peculiar  to  P,  as  appears  from  its 
occurrence  in  Gen.  ii.  7  ;  xiv.  21  ;  Dent.  x.  22 ;  xxiv.  7 ; 
xxvii.  25 ;  Josh.  x.  28-39  ;  xi.  11  ;  not  to  speak  of  Gen. 
xlvi.  15-27,  which  several  eminent  critics  ascribe  to 
another  than  P.  Dillmann  ("  Genesis,"  p.  230)  remarks 
that  "  it  was  scarcely  possible  to  avoid  using  TBB3  for  per- 
sons of  both  sexes,  free  and  slave,"  and  ("  Exodus,  Leviti- 
cus," p.  535)  that  it  is  not  a  certain  indication  of  P. 

4.  l^DS  yns  land  of  Canaan,  is  classed  as  character- 
istic of  P  ;  but  it  occurs  repeatedly  in  both  J  and  E,  viz.: 
xlii.  5,  7, 13,  29,  32;  xliv.  8 ;  xlv.  17,  25  ;  xlvi.  31 ;  xlvii.  1, 
4,  13,  14,  15  ;  1.5,  Avhere,  as  Dillmann  remarks,  it  stands 
in  contrast  with  the  land  of  Egypt.  In  like  manner  it  is 
used  in  the  passages  now  in  question  to  designate  the  land 
promised  to  Abram  (xvii.  8),  in  contrast  with  Haran  from 
which  he  came  (xii.  5  ;  xvi.  3),  and  with  the  cities  of  the 
plain  selected  by  Lot  (xiii.  12). 

5.  It  appears,  accordingly,  that  these  words,  whether 
regarded  singly  or  collectively,  afford  no  indication  of  P 
as  distinguished  from  the  other  so-called  documents. 
There  is,  however,  a  striking  resemblance  in  the  phrase- 
ology of  xii.  5  ;  xxxi.  18  ;  xxxvi,  6 ;  xlvi.  6 ;  which  cre- 
ates a  strong  presumption,  if  not  a  certainty,  that  these 
verses  are  all  from  the  same  hand.  The  critics  refer  them 
all  alike  to  P ;  but  they  do  so  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
xii.  5  is  in  a  J  context,  xxxi.  18  and  xlvi.  6,  in  an  E  con- 
text, and  that  of  xxxvi.  6  is  disputed.  Their  assignment 
to  P  is  altogether  arbitrary.  They  are  made  to  sustain 
each  other  in  this,  while  there  is  no  reason  for  sundering 
any  one  of  them  from  the  connection  in  which  it  stands, 
and  attributing  it  to  a  different  document,  but  the  mere 
will  of  the  critics.  Words  descriptive  of  the  possessions 
of  the  patriarchs  are  natui'ally  grouped  together  when 

13 


178  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

mention  is  made  of  their  migrations.  But  the  only  rea- 
son for  alleging  these  words  to  be  characteristic  of  P  is 
that  these  migrations  are  assigned  to  him  in  the  arbi- 
trary manner  already  described.  The  critics  have  them- 
selves created  the  criterion,  to  which  they  then  confi- 
dently point  in  justification  of  the  partition  which  they 
have  made. 

(4)  This  statement  could  not  have  been  lacking  in  P. 
This  is  a  frank  avowal  of  the  motive  by  which  the 

critics  are  actuated  in  rending  ver.  5  from  its  connection. 
It  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  out  an  appearance  of 
continuity  for  this  supposititious  document.  Instead  of 
an  argument  for  the  hj^pothesis  it  is  simply  a  confession 
of  the  straits  to  which  it  is  reduced. 

(5)  The  mention  of  Abram's  age  in  ver.  4:b  is  held  to 
be  a  sufiicient  reason  for  ascribing  it  to  P. 

a.  It  is  a  purely  arbitrary  assumption  that  dates  and 
statements  of  men's  ages  are  to  be  referred  to  P,  even 
when,  as  in  the  present  instance,  the  context  in  which 
they  are  embedded  is  derived  by  the  critics  from  some 
other  document.  A  particularly  glaring  case  occurs  in 
xli.  46,  where  Joseph's  age  when  he  stood  before  Pharaoh 
is  assigned  to  P,  though  there  is  nothing  in  that  docu- 
ment to  which  to  attach  it.  It  is  easy  to  manufacture  a 
criterion  of  this  sort,  and  carry  it  relentlessly  through, 
and  then  point  to  the  fact  that  all  the  dates  are  to  be 
found  in  P  in  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  the  rule. 
They  are  there  for  the  simple  reason  that  this  is  where 
the  critics  have  put  them.  It  has  no  further  significance 
if  the  various  statements  of  the  ages  of  the  patriarchs, 
when  put  together,  yield  a  consistent  chronology ;  ^  this  is 

>  It  may  be  observed  here  that  there  is  no  conflict  in  the  chronology 
between  xii.  4b  and  xi.  32  ;  though,  if  there  were,  this  would  be  no 
argument  for  a  diversity  of  writers,  since  in  the  esteem  of  the  critics 
both  belong  to  the  same  document.     Abram  left  Haran  many  years  be- 


THE   CALL   OF   ABRAM   (CH.    XII.    1-9)  179 

no  excuse  for  critical  surgery,  but  is  only  one  indication 
more  that  the  book  of  Genesis  is  woven  together  too 
firmly  to  be  rent  asunder,  except  by  a  violence  which  will 
destroy  the  fabric.  Inconsistently  enough,  where  a  dif- 
ferent motive  operates,  the  critics  allow  that  E  recorded 
Joseph's  age  (Gen.  1.  22,  26),  and  that  of  Joshua  (Josh. 
xxiv.  29)  in  which  P,  as  a  native  of  Judah,  is  presumed 
to  have  less  interest ;  and  even  that  of  Caleb  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah  (Josh.  xiv.  7,  10),  which  occurs  in  a  connection 
that  constrains  them  to  refer  it  to  E. 

b.  4b  presupposes  4a.  It  is  not  a  statement  that 
Abram  went  forth  from  Haran,  but  a  declaration  of  his 
age  at  the  time,  implying  that  the  fact  of  his  having  done 
so  had  been  already  mentioned ;  and  for  this  reason  it 
cannot  connect  with  xi.  31,  as  the  critics  propose,  where 
no  such  affirmation  is  made. 

(6)  According  to  vs.  4b,  5,  Abram  simply  continues  the 
migration  to  Canaan  begun  by  his  father  (xi.  31),  acting 
from  the  same  impulse,  and  from  natural  motives  but 
without  any  divine  call ;  whereas  ver.  1  represents  his 
journey  as  undertaken  at  the  divine  command,  Abram 
not  knowing  whither  he  was  to  go. 

But  there  is  no  diversity  of  representation  implying 
that  these  verses  have  been  drawn  from  diverse  sources. 
On  the  contrary  they  are  mutually  supplementary.  The 
movement  initiated  by  Terah  to  find  more  desirable 
quarters  was  carried  out  by  Abram  at  Jehovah's  bid- 
ding, who  guided  him  to  the  land  to  which  his  father  had 
originally  intended  to  go.     And  with  this  the  statement 

fore  Terah's  death.  Only  the  writer,  according  to  his  uniform  method, 
completes  Terah's  life  before  proceeding  to  that  of  Abram  (cf .  xxv.  7 ; 
XXXV.  29).  The  Samaritan  text,  in  order  to  relieve  this  imaginary  diffi- 
culty, reduces  the  age  of  Terah  from  two  hundred  and  five  to  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-five  ye^vs,  Acts  vii.  4  follows  the  order  of  the  narrative, 
not  that  of  time. 


180  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

of  XV.  7  is  in  full  accord.  Jehovah  providentially  led 
Abram  to  accompany  Terah  to  Haran,  and  then  by  an 
immediate  call  brought  him  to  Canaan.  The  divine  call 
which  is  expressed  in  ver.  1  is  implied  in  4b,  according 
to  which  Abram  leaves  Haran  in  the  lifetime  of  his 
father.  Why  should  he  leave  Terah  behind  him  if  they 
Avere  migrating  under  one  common  impulse  ? 

Knobel  assigns  vs.  6,  8a,  9,  also  to  P ;  to  which  Dill- 
mann  objects  that  P  shows  no  interest  in  connecting  the 
patriarchs  with  the  holy  places  of  later  times,  though  he 
excepts  XXXV.  9  from  this  remark.  Schrader  refers  6a, 
8a,  9,  to  E,  who,  as  a  North-Israelite,  inclined  to  link 
Abram  Avith  Shechem  and  Bethel.  With  this  Dillmann 
and  Kittel  concur  so  far  as  to  regard  E  as  the  source  from 
which  J,  as  the  author  of  vs.  6-9,  drew  the  mention  of 
these  localities.  This  is  based  upon  the  notion  that  the 
recorded  lives  of  the  patriarchs  are  not  the  recital  of  ac- 
tual events,  but  a  reflection  of  the  ideas  of  later  times, 
and  that  the  places  where  they  are  said  to  have  dwelt  or 
worshipped  are  so  designated  because  of  local  sanctua- 
ries established  there  in  subsequent  ages,  to  which  credit 
was  attached  by  stories  that  they  had  been  hallowed  by 
the  presence  of  their  ancestors.  All  speculations  about 
authorship  Avhich  spring  from  this  false  conception  of 
the  patriarchal  history,  are,  of  course,  entirely  baseless. 

Meanwhile  the  unity  of  the  entire  paragraph  (vs.  1-9) 
is  obvious.  Verse  8b  presupposes  8a,  and  cannot  be  sep- 
arated from  it ;  8a  presupposes  ver.  6,  and  this  in  its  turn 
ver.  5,  which  defines  the  land  referred  to  and  mentions 
the  arrival  there,  which  is  implied,  but  not  stated,  in  ver. 
6.  Again,  4b  presupposes  4a,  and  this  vs.  1-3.  The 
grant  of  the  land  in  ver.  7,  notwithstanding  its  present 
occupancy  by  others  (6b),  is  with  express  reference  to  the 
promise  in  ver.  1.  And  ver.  9  is  the  natural  continua- 
tion of  the  marches  in  vs.  6,  8.     All  is  thus  concatenated 


THE   CALL   OF   ABRAM   (CII.    XII.    1-9)  181 

together  in  a  mauuer  to  defy  critical  severance.  On  the 
assumjition  that  vs.  10-20  is  an  interpolation,  it  has  been 
argued  that  ver.  9  was  inserted  by  R  as  a  connective. 
This  inference  is  by  no  means  necessary,  even  if  the  as- 
sumption were  correct ;  but  it  falls  as  a  matter  of  course 
if  the  latter  is  shown  to  be  untrue,  which  will  be  done 
presently. 

MAEKS   OF  J. 

Dillmann  finds  the  following  criteria  of  the  document 
J  in  vs.  l-4a,  6-9,  viz. :  1,  The  divine  call ;  2,  divine  wor- 
ship ;  3,  nirp  Jehovah  ;  4,  H'^'liin  nins  iZJ'a'bs  all  the  fam- 
ilies of  the  earth  ;  5,  3  'ijin;  be  blessed  in  ;  6,  b))'p  curse. 
It  has  been  before  shown  that  there  is  a  reason  for  the 
occurrence  of  the  name  Jehovah  here  and  elsewhere  in 
the  life  of  Abram  quite  independent  of  the  question  of 
documents  ;  also  that  patriarchal  worship  is  as  a  rule 
connected  with  that  name ;  and  there  is  an  equally  ob- 
vious reason  why  the  call  of  Abram  should  likewise  be 
similarly  connected.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  lin- 
guistic criteria  alleged  are  all  limited  to  one  verse  (ver. 
3).  The  phrase,  "  all  the  families  of  the  earth,"  occurs 
but  once  besides  in  the  Pentateuch  (xxviii.  14),  where 
the  same  promise  is  repeated  to  Jacob.  The  other  repe- 
titions of  this  promise  are  by  the  critics  referred  to  R 
(xviii.  18  ;  xxii.  1'8  ;  xxvi.  4),  and  there  the  equivalent  ex- 
pression flSin  '^■'ia  bs  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  is  used. 
The  Niphal  of  tj-q  to  bless,  occurs  but  three  times  in  the 
Ohl  Testament,  each  time  in  this  same  promise  (xii.  3 ; 
xxviii.  14  J ;  and  xviii.  18  R).  Since  these  expressions 
are  limited  to  this  one  promise,  and  occur  in  J  but  once 
in  addition  to  the  verse  now  before  us,  they  cannot  be 
classed  as  indications  of  the  existence  of  a  separate  doc- 
ument so  called.  Moreover,  the  promise  of  a  blessing 
to  all  nations  was  given  three  times  to  Abram  on  occa- 


182  THE   GENERATIOlSrS   OF   TERAH 

sions  of  special  note  (xii.  3  ;  xviii.  18;  xxii.  18),  once  to 
Isaac  (xxvi.  4),  and  once  to  Jacob  (xxviii.  14) ;  on  all  other 
occasions  in  J  (xii.  7 ;  xiii.  15,  16 ;  xv.  5,  7,  18),  or  P, 
(xvii.4-8;  xxviii.  3,  4 ;  xxxv.  11, 12)  attention  is  especially 
directed  to  the  gift  of  Canaan  and  of  a  numerous  poster- 
ity without  any  mention  of  their  relation  to  the  world  at 
large.  And  the  limitation  in  these  instances  is  not  sug- 
gestive of  the  peculiarity  of  a  particular  documout,  but 
grows  out  of  the  circumstances  of  each  case.  That  tlie 
phrases  now  in  question  could  have  no  place  in  these  re- 
stricted promises  is  obvious.  Neither  their  occurrence 
nor  their  omission  can  afford  a  plea  for  a  diversity  of 
documents.  It  remains  to  be  added  that  while  the  pre- 
cise combinations  and  forms  above  adduced  do  not  occur 
in  P,  for  the  reason  now  given,  the  words  themselves  are 
found  in  passages  ascribed  to  P ;  thus  nnsir'a  family, 
very  frequently,  and  even  in  application  to  the  nations 
of  mankind  (x.  5,  20,  31,  32) ;  nri'li?.  earth  (i.  25  ;  vi.  20 ; 
ix.  2) ;  tyns  hh'ss  (Gen  i.  22,  28  ;  \\.  3  ;  v.  2  ;  ix.  1,  etc.). 

One  word  remains  of  the  alleged  characteristics  of  J, 
b^p  curse,  which  is  as  little  to  the  purpose  as  the  preced- 
ing. Apart  from  Gen.  xii,  3  it  occurs  but  once  in  J 
(viii.  21) ;  four  times  in  P  (Lev.  xxiv.  11,  14,  15,  23)  ; 
once  in  E  (Josh.  xxiv.  9)  ;  once  in  D  (Deut.  xxiii.  5,  E. 
v.,  ver.  4) ;  twice  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxi. 
17 ;  xxii.  27,  E.  V.,  ver.  28) ;  three  times  in  the  Holiness 
Laws  (Lev.  xix.  14 ;  xx.  9  bis). 

ABEAM   IN  EGYPT   (VS.    10-20). 

Three  instances  are  recorded  in  which  the  wives  of 
the  patriarchs  attracted  the  attention  of  monarchs,  and 
through  the  prevarication  of  their  husbands  were 
brought  into  peril,  from  which  by  God's  providence 
they  were  delivered,  viz.:  Sarai  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh 


ABEAM   IN-   EGYPT   (CH.    XII.    10-20)  183 

in  Egjpt  (xii.  10-20)  ;  and  again  with  Abimelech,  king 
of  Gerar  (ch.  xx.) ;  and  Rebekali  before  another  king  of 
the  same  name  (xxvi.  6-11).  These  are  to  the  critics  va- 
riant accounts  of  the  same  event,  or  different  forms  of 
the  same  legend.  Knobel  regards  ch.  xx.  as  the  original 
narrative,  and  chs.  xii.  and  xxvi.  as  later  modifications  of 
the  legend.  Kuenen  ("  Hexateuch,"  p.  252)  says  that  a 
saga,  of  which  Isaac  was  originally  the  subject,  has  here 
and  in  ch.  xx.  been  transferred  to  Abram.  Delitzsch 
ventures  no  positive  aflirmation,  but  seems  in  doubt 
whether  some  duplication  or  transposition  may  not  have 
taken  place.  "  It  is  enough,"  he  says,  "  for  us  to  know 
that  the  three  histories  are  three  traditions  contained  in 
ancient  sources,  that  the  redactor  deserves  our  thanks 
for  not  suppressing  one  in  favor  of  the  others,  and  that 
all  these  attest  God's  grace  and  faithfulness,  which  ren- 
der the  interference  of  human  weakness  and  sin  with 
his  plan  of  grace  harmless,  and  even  tributary  to  its  suc- 
cessful issue."  But  the  value  of  the  religious  lesson  is  de- 
pendent on  the  reality  of  the  occurrence.  Is  this  a  Jew- 
ish notion  of  God  embodied  in  a  fiction,  or  is  it  a  fact  in 
which  God  has  himself  revealed  his  character  ?  A  dis- 
trust of  well-accredited  facts  because  of  a  certain  meas- 
ure of  similitude  to  other  facts  would  throw  history  into 
confusion.  Must  we  regard  the  battles  of  Bull  Eun, 
fought  in  successive  years  on  the  same  spot,  and  termi- 
nating the  same  way,  but  in  different  periods  of  the  war 
and  under  different  commanders,  as  variant  and  conflict- 
ing accounts  of  some  one  transaction  that  can  no  longer 
be  accurately  identified  ?  Why  might  not  Abram  repeat 
in  Gerar  what  he  had  done  in  Egypt,  when  it  was  under- 
stood between  him  and  Sarai  that  they  were  to  pass  for 
brother  and  sister  in  "  every  place "  to  which  they 
should  come  (xx.  13)  ?  And  why  may  not  Isaac,  whose 
life  was  so  largely  patterned  after  that  of  his  father,  have 


184  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

beeu  misled  into  an  imitation  of  his  error  in  this  in- 
stance ? 

Wellhausen  claims  that  vs.  10-20  is  a  later  addition  to 
the  text  of  J,  because  Lot  was  not  with  Abram  in  Egypt, 
though  according  to  J  he  was  with  him  both  before  (ver. 
4a)  and  after  (xiii.  5) ;  and  Abram  was  at  the  very  same 
place  in  xiii.  4  as  in  xii.  8,  from  which  it  may  be  inferred 
that  he  had  not  meanwhile  changed  his  position.  Dill- 
mann  thinks  that  the  true  place  of  this  narrative  in  J 
was  after  the  separation  of  Abram  and  Lot  (ch.  xiii.),  and 
that  it  was  transposed  by  E,  to  remove  it  further  from  ch. 
XX.  But  the  visit  to  Egypt  is  confirmed  by  xxvi.  1,  2 ; 
the  presence  of  Lot  there  by  the  express  statement,  "  Lot 
with  him  "  (xiii.  1) ;  and  Abram  is  explicitly  said  to  have 
retraced  his  steps  to  the  point  from  which  he  had  started 
(vs.  3,  4).  These  positive  confirmations  are  by  a  stroke 
of  the  critics'  pen  ejected  from  the  text,  and  attributed  to 
R,  for  no  imaginable  reason  but  that  they  nullify  a  base- 
less critical  conjecture.  Lot's  name  does  not  occur  in 
xii.  10-20,  because  Abram  was  the  principal  party  and 
there  was  nothing  to  record  respecting  Lot.  For  the 
same  reason  he  is  not  mentioned  in  vs.  6-9,  nor  Aner, 
Eshcol,  and  Mamre,  in  xiv.  14-23  (cf.  vs.  13,  24) ;  nor 
Nahor  in  xi.  31,  whose  migration  to  Haran  can  only  be 
inferred  from  allusions  subsequently  made  (xxiv.  10).  It 
may  also  be  remarked  that  xvi.  1  lends  an  incidental 
confirmation  to  xii.  16  ;  Pharaoh's  gift  to  Abram  ex- 
plains the  presence  of  an  Egyptian  maid  in  his  house- 
hold. 

Dillmann  notes  a  few  words  and  phrases  in  this  para- 
graph as  indicative  of  J.  These  and  others  of  the  same 
sort  noted  in  other  cases  are  of  no  account  for  two  rea- 
sons. Inasmuch  as  the  bulk  of  the  narrative  is  given  to 
J  or  E,  and  only  scattered  scraps  to  P,  the  great  major- 
ity of  words  appropriate  to  narrative  will,  of  course,  be 


SEPARATION"   FROM   LOT   (CII.    XIII.)  185 

found  in  J  or  E,  and  comparatively  few  in  P.  Besides, 
several  of  the  words  adduced  occur  but  rarely  even  in 
J,  and  cannot,  therefore,  with  any  propriety  be  held  to 
be  characteristic  of  his  style.  If  their  absence  from  a 
large  proportion  of  the  paragraphs  of  J  does  not  prove 
these  to  be  from  a  different  pen,  how  can  their  absence 
from  the  paragraphs  of  P  be  urged  in  proof  of  a  diversity 
of  documents,  especially  if  there  was  no  occasion  to  use 
them? 

MARKS   OF   J. 

1.  T\MV  Jehovah,  explained  already. 

2.  b  i'^'O'^n  treated  loell,  ver.  16,  only  once  besides  in  J 
(Num".  X.  32),  and  twice  in  E  (Ex.  i.  20 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  20) ; 
in  the  same  sense  with  a  different  preposition  Gen. 
xxxii.  10,  13,  E.  y.,  vs.  9,  12  J ;  without  a  preposition 
Lev.  V.  4  P. 

3.  i53  I  pray  thee  (ver.  13),  often  in  J  and  E,  but  once 
at  least  in  P  (Gen.  xxxiv.  8),  perhaps  also  Num.  xx.  10 
(so  Noldeke  and  Schrader). 

4.  N:"n2n  behold  noio  (ver.  11 ;  xvi.  2;  xviii.  27,  31 ;  xix. 
2,  8,  19,  20';  xxvii.  2  J). 

5.  "i^nya/or  the  sake  of  {vs.  13,  16),  always  referred  to 
J,  E,  or  R.     See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  6. 

6.  bb'y'3.  because  of  (ver.  13 ),  only  twice  besides  in  J  (xxx. 
27  ;  xxxix.  5) ;  in  D  (Dent.  i.  37  ;  xv.  10  ;  xviii.  12) ;  all  in 
the  Hexateuch. 

7.  n^iriS'  PiiT-rra  what  is  this  that  thou  hast  done  (ver.  18 ; 
Gen.  iii.  13  ;  xxvi.  10  ;  Ex.  xiv.  11  J ;  Gen.  xxix.  25  ;  xhi. 
28 ;  Ex.  xiv.  5  E) ;  once  without  a  verb  (Ex.  xiii.  14  J). 


SEPARATION   FEOM   LOT    (CH.  XIII.). 

The  critics  divide  this  chapter  thus  : 

J,  vs.  1-5,  7-lla,  12b-18  ;  P,  vs.  6,  lib,  12a. 


186  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

Knobel  assigns  to  P,  vs.  3a,  6,  10a,c,  12,  18a. 

Scliracler  parcels  the  j)ortiou  of  J  between  J  and  E 
thus : 

J,  vs.  1,  4,  7b,  10b,  13-17,  18b ;  E,  vs.  2,  3,  5,  7a,  8- 
10a,  11a,  12b,  18a. 

Wellhausen  gives  to  R  vs.  1,  3,  4,  and  regards  vs.  14- 
17  as  a  later  addition  to  J. 

Dillinaun  gives  R  the  words,  "  and  Lot  with  him,"  in 
ver.  1,  together  with  vs.  3,  4. 

GROUNDS   OF   PARTITION. 

The  manipulation  of  the  text  attributed  to  R  by  Well- 
hausen and  Dillmann  simply  means  that  it  is  incompatible 
with  their  notions  respecting  xi.  10-20.  Verses  1,  3,  4  de- 
scribe Abram's  return  from  Egypt  with  his  wife  and  Lot, 
and  his  proceeding  by  successive  stages  to  the  point 
from  which  he  had  set  out.  This  shows  conclusively  that 
he  had  visited  Egypt,  and  had  visited  it  at  that  time, 
as  recorded  in  the  preceding  chapter.  "Wellhausen,  to 
whom  the  Egyptian  episode  is  a  later  fabrication,  is 
obliged  to  rid  himself  of  vs.  1,  3,  4,  altogether.  Dill- 
maun,  in  whose  view  it  occurred  after  Abram's  separa- 
tion from  Lot,  is  also  compelled  to  reject  vs.  3,  4,  but  he 
allows  ver.  1  to  stand  as  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative 
in  its  original  position,  only  without  the  words  "  and  Lot 
with  him,"  which  would  wreck  his  whole  assumption.  It 
is  then  claimed  that  vs.  2,  5,  connect  directly  with  xii.  8. 

That  such  a  factitious  connection  is  possible  proves 
nothing  as  to  the  original  constitution  of  the  text.  It 
warrants  no  suspicion  that  the  omitted  portions  do  not 
properly  belong  in  their  present  position.  Paragraphs 
and  sections  can  be  dropped  from  any  narrative  or  from 
any  piece  of  composition  that  ever  was  written  without 
destroying  its  apparent  continuity.     This  is  particularly 


SEPARATION   FROM   LOT   (CH.   XIII.)  187 

the  case  with  au  episode  like  the  present,  Avhich,  though  it 
has  its  importance  and  appropriateness  in  its  place,  might 
be  thrown  out  without  disturbing  the  general  current  of 
the  history. 

The  fact  is  that  the  connection  is  perfect  as  it  stands, 
and  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  calling  in  the 
aid  of  R  except  to  x>atch  up  an  unfounded  critical  con- 
jecture. Abram  returns  (ver.  1)  with  his  wife  and  pos- 
sessions from  Egypt  to  the  southern  district  of  Palestine 
through  which  he  had  passed  on  his  way  to  Egypt  (xii. 
9).  The  presence  of  Lot  with  him,  to  which  there  was 
no  occasion  to  allude  before,  is  now  mentioned  as  pre- 
paratory to  the  separation  which  Avas  shortly  to  take 
place,  and  to  which  the  whole  narrative  is  now  tending. 
The  riches  of  Abram  (ver.  2),  who  advances  to  bis  former 
position  in  the  land  by  stated  marches  (vs.  3,  4),  (the  ex- 
pression is  suggestive  of  the  progress  of  a  large  company 
or  caravan),  and  the  flocks  and  herds  of  Lot  (ver.  5), 
picture  the  situation.  Then  follows  in  ver.  6  precisely 
what  might  be  expected — the  land  was  incapable  of  sup- 
porting them  together.  The  result  was  strife  between 
their  respective  herdmen  (ver.  7a),  and  the  difliculty  was 
aggravated  (ver.  7b)  by  the  presence  of  the  native  in- 
habitants who  tenanted  the  region. 

The  exigencies  of  the  divisive  hypothesis  make  it  nec- 
essary to  find  material  for  P  as  well  as  J  in  this  chapter. 
In  xix.  29,  which  is  referred  to  P,  it  appears  that  Lot 
had  parted  from  Abram,  and  the  reader  must  have  been 
made  aware  of  the  fact.  In  order  to  find  such  a  state- 
ment in  P  the  critics  propose  to  rend  ver.  6  from  the 
closely  concatenated  paragraph  just  reviewed.  In  justi- 
fication of  this  it  is  urged  — 

1.  Verse  6  is  superfluous  beside  the  detailed  account 
of  the  separation  (vs.  7  sqq.)  and  is  somewhat  inconsis- 
tent with  it  in  tracing  the  separation  to  the  general  rea- 


188  THE   GENERATIONS   OF  TERAH 

son  of  the  greatness  of  their  possessions  instead  of  its 
special  occasion  the  strife  of  the  herclmen  ;  and  its  last 
clause  goes  beyond  what  immediately  follows  and  extends 
to  the  separation  itself  (ver.  12).     But — 

a.  This  disregards  the  frequent  usage  of  Hebrew 
writers  to  state  first  in  a  summary  manner  what  is  subse- 
quently unfolded  in  detail.  Thus,  Judg.  xx.  35,  36a,  pre- 
cedes the  more  particular  recital,  vs.  36b-46  ;  1  Kin,  v,  9 
is  expanded  in  vs.  10-14  (E.  V.,  iv.  29  in  vs.  30-34) ;  vi. 
14  in  vs.  15-36  ;  xi.  3b  in  vs.  4-8  ;  2  Kin.  xxi.  2  in  vs.  3-9. 
See  other  examples  of  a  like  nature  given  above  under 
xii.  5. 

h.  Yerse  6  is  neither  superfluous  beside  ver.  7,  nor  in- 
consistent with  it.  It  explains  the  occasion  of  the  strife 
that  followed.  And  it  is  important  as  shoAviug  that  a 
peaceful  separation  was  the  only  available  remedy.  The 
strife  did  not  spring  from  petty  or  accidental  causes, 
which  were  capable  of  adjustment.  It  was  inherent  in 
the  situation.  The  land  could  not  furnish  pasture  and 
wells  enough  for  their  superabundant  flocks.  Collision 
was  inevitable  if  they  remained  together.  By  erasing 
ver.  6  this  real  and  pressing  necessity  disappears.  It  is 
to  this  that  the  statements  respecting  the  largeness  of 
the  possessions  of  both  Abram  and  Lot  were  meant  to 
lead  up  (vs.  2,  5).  It  is  this  which  is  emphasized  by  the 
reference  to  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  (ver.  7), 
wliich  has  no  meaning  otherwise.  Yer.  6  is  thus  essen- 
tial in  the  connection,  and  cannot  have  belonged  to  an- 
other document. 

2.  Its  close  correspondence  with  xxxvi.  7. 

The  expressions  in  the  two  passages  are  almost  identi- 
cal, which  speaks  strongly  for  their  common  authorship. 
And  this  cannot  be  too  strongly  affirmed  and  insisted 
upon  in  the  interest  of  the  unity  of  the  book.  Tliis  is 
no  argument  for  diversity  of  documents,  and  no  proof 


SEPARATION    FKOM   LOT   (CII.   XIII.)  189 

that  ver.  6  belongs  to  any  other  than  its  present  context. 
By  an  arbitrary  dictum  of  the  critics  the  four  principal 
passages  recording  the  migrations  of  the  patriarchs  (xii. 
5  ;  xxxi.  18 ;  xxxvi.  6,  7  ;  xlvi.  6),  which  are  all  of  one 
stamp  and  evidence  themselves  to  be  from  the  same 
hand,  are  referred  to  a  document  distinct  from  the  con- 
text in  which  they  stand,  and  their  prominent  words  are 
classed  as  criteria  of  that  document.  This  is  then  mftde 
a  base  of  operations  for  forcing  other  passages  out  of 
their  proper  connection,  and  thus  building  up  this  sup- 
posititious document.  But  the  argument  partakes  too 
much  of  the  character  of  a  vicious  circle  to  be  convinc- 
ing. 

The  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  bound  as  closely  to- 
gether as  is  that  portion  already  considered.  Recogniz- 
ing the  real  occasion  of  the  strife,  and  the  only  practicable 
mode  of  terminating  or  avoiding  it,  Abram  (vs.  8,  9) 
proposes  a  separation  and  generously  offers  his  younger 
kinsman  his  choice  of  any  part  of  the  land.  Lot  chose 
in  consequence  the  fertile  plain  of  the  Jordan  (vs.  10, 
11).  Thus  they  separated,  Abram  dwelling  in  the  land 
of  Canaan,  and  Lot  in  the  cities  of  the  plain,  moving  his 
tent  as  far  as  Sodom  (ver.  12).  The  wickedness  of  this 
city  is  then  remarked  upon  (ver.  13),  to  give  an  intima- 
tion of  its  approaching  doom  and  of  the  issue  of  Lot's 
unwise  choice. 

Under  the  same  pressure  as  before,  the  critics  here  pro- 
pose to  sunder  vs.  lib,  12a  from  its  context  and  give  it 
to  P.     In  favor  of  this  it  is  urged — 

1.  Verse  lib  is  unnecessary  after  11a  ;  and  12a  repre- 
sents Lot  as  having  a  fixed  abode,  while  according  to  11a 
and  12b  he  led  the  wandering  life  of  a  nomad  in  tents. 
But  —a.  After  the  mention  of  Lot's  removal  eastward  it 
was  still  important  to  state  distinctly  that  this  effected  a 
separation  between  him  and  Abram.     This  is  the  very 


190  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

point  of  the  narrative,  as  is  indicated  by  the  triple  repe- 
tition of  the  word  ;  in  ver.  9,  "  separate  thyself,"  ver.  14, 
"  after  that  Lot  Avas  separated,"  ver.  11,  "  and  they  sepa- 
rated." This  last  cannot  be  severed  from  the  other  two. 
With  all  the  emphasis  thrown  upon  the  fact  of  separation 
the  critics  would  have  us  suppose  that  while  it  Avas  pro- 
posed by  Abram  (ver.  9),  and  mention  is  made  of  what 
occiirred  after  it  had  taken  place  (ver.  11),  the  act  of  sep- 
arating was  not  itself  noted ;  and  that  the  record  of  sep- 
aration in  the  text,  with  its  evident  allusion  to  Abram's 
proposal,  is  a  fragment  from  a  different  document. 

h.  The  structure  of  the  sentences  forbids  the  partition 
made  by  the  critics.  The  repetition  of  Lot,  as  the  sub- 
ject of  the  second  verb  in  ver.  11,  can  only  be  explained 
by  its  being  contrasted  with  Abram's  remaining  behind 
in  Canaan  ;  ver.  12a  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  complete 
the  construction.  Kautzsch  and  Socin  concede  as  much 
when  they  say  that  J  must  have  had  such  a  clause  but 
R  omitted  it  in  order  to  adopt  that  of  P.  Still  fm-ther, 
in  ver.  14  Jehovah  precedes  the  verb  of  which  it  is  the 
subject.  This  is  also  due  to  contrast  Avith  ver.  12,  where 
the  same  phenomenon  twice  appears.  What  Abram  did, 
and  Lot  did,  and  Jehovah  did,  stand  in  manifest  rela- 
tion ;  and  ver.  12  cannot  accordingly  be  separated  from 
ver.  14  as  an  interjected  fragment  from  a  different  docu- 
ment. 

c.  As  to  the  alleged  diversity  in  Lot's  mode  of  life,  it 
is  plain  that  R,  or  AA^ioever  gave  the  text  its  present  form, 
saw  none,  or  he  Avould  not  have  joined  rnutually  incon- 
sistent clauses  Avithout  explanation.  And  such  diversity, 
if  it  existed,  would  prove  inconvenient  to  the  critics ;  for 
in  ch.  xix.  (J)  Lot  is  not  leading  a  tent  life,  but  dwelling 
in  one  of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  in  accordance  Avitli  Avhat 
they  here  assign  to  P,  but  coujflicting  AAdth  AA'hat  they  as- 
sign to  J.     And  in  ver.  18  the  same  two  verbs  are  com- 


SEPARATION   FROM   LOT    (GIL   XIII.)  191 

bined  in  relation  to  Abram,  which  are  used  of  Lot  in 
ver.  12a  and  b,  and  are  here  set  in  opposition  bj  the 
critics.  Where  is  the  diiiicultj  in  assuming,  as  both 
xiii.  6, 12a  (P),  and  xiii.  12b,  ch.  six.  (J)  require,  that  Lot 
took  up  his  quarters  in  one  of  the  cities,  while  those  in 
charge  of  his  flocks  Uved  in  teuts  on  the  plain  ? 

2.  "  Cities  of  the  plain "  (xiii.  12)  corresponds  with 
the  expression  in  xix.  29  P,  as  against  xiii.  10,  11,  "  the 
plain  of  Jordan,"  and  12b,  "  Sodom,"  expressions  of  J. 

But  a  purely  factitious  difference  is  created  here  by 
arbitrarily  dividing  a  sentence,  and  giving  part  to  one 
document  and  part  to  another.  "  The  plain  of  Jordan  " 
differs  from  "Sodom"  as  much  as  the  latter  differs  from 
the  "  cities  of  the  plain ; "  so  that  if  the  latter  can  be 
urged  in  proof  of  diversity  of  authorship,  the  former  may 
likewise  ;  and  it  would  follow  that  what  the  critics  here 
assign  to  J  should  be  partitioned  between  different  writ- 
ers. "  The  plain  of  Jordan  "  only  occurs  xiii.  10,  11  ; 
elsewhere  it  is  simply  "  the  plain,"  alike  in  xix.  17,  25, 
28,  assigned  to  J,  and  in  xiii.  12,  xix.  29,  assigned  to  P. 
Moreover,  according  to  J  (xiii.  10 ;  xix.  24,  25,  28 ;  cf.  x. 
19),  there  was  more  than  one  city  in  the  plain,  so  that  P's 
phrase  is  completely  justified.^ 

3.  The  verses  assigned  to  P  (vs.  6,  lib,  12a)  have 
words  and  phrases  peculiar  to  that  document.  But  the 
futility  of  this  plea  is  obvious  on  the  slightest  examina- 
tion. 

1  "  It  is  alleged  that  one  narrator  calls  the  cities  about  the  Jordan  '  the 
cities  of  the  plain,'  and  the  other  '  all  the  plain  of  Jordan.'  But  the 
latter  cannot  of  itself  denote  those  cities,  but  only  the  great  plain  by 
the  Jordan.  Therefore  it  stands  (xiii.  10,  11)  quite  properly  of  the  laud 
which  Lot  chose  as  well  watered,  whilst  with  equal  propriety  Lot  dwells 
in  the  cities  of  the  plain  (xiii.  12),  and  these  cities  are  destroyed  by  God 
(xix.  29)." — Ewald,  Komposition  d.  Genesis,  pp.  118,  119. 


192  THE   GEXERATI0X3    OF   TEEAH 


MAKES   OF   P 

Dillmann  specifies  the  following  : 
-__J^©'D"i  substance.     See  word  No.  2,  under  xii.  5. 

2.  scr75~~^ea>'  (ver.  6t,  is  claimed  for  P,  by  whicli  can 
only  be  meant  tlial^"D€<^rs  once,  though  only  once,  in 
a  precisely  similar  connectioti — xxxvi.  7 — a  verse  arbitra- 
rily ascribed  to  P.  The  verb  itself  occurs  repeatedly 
in  J  and  E.  It  is  used  in  the  sense  of  "  bearing  "  in  J 
(Gen.  iv.  13 ;  vii.  17  ;  Num.  xi.  14 ;  xiv.  33),  and  in  E  (Ex. 
xviii.  22). 

3.  nc^  to  dwell  (ts.  6,  12),  is  also  claimed  for  P, 
whereas  it  occurs  repeatedly  in  J  and  E,  not  only  in 
other  applications,  but  with  express  reference  to  the 
patriarchs  in  Canaan  :  J,  xiii.  18  ;  xix.  30  (Lot)  ;  xxy. 
lib  ;  xxvi.  6,  17  ;  E,  xx.  1,  15  ;  xxii.  19 ;  xxxv.  1. 

4.  yji2  ■J''"i5$  land  of  Canaan  (ver.  12).  See  word  No.  4, 
under  xii.  5. 

5.  l|3n  in;?  cities  of  the  plain  only  occurs  xiii.  12 ;  xix. 
29 ;  cf.  ver.  25.     See  above. 

The  assertion  that  xix.  29  has  been  trans^^osed  from  its 
proper  position,  and  that  it  was  originally  attached  to 
xiii.  12a,  is  altogether  groundless,  and  merely  betrays  the 
embarrassment  created  by  sundering  it  from  the  connec- 
tion in  which  it  stands,  and  to  which,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter,  it  is  firmly  bound  both  by  its  matter  and  form, 
the  change  in  the  divine  name  being  for  a  sufiicient  rea- 
son and  not  suggestive  of  a  different  writer. 

The  significance  of  Lot's  separating  from  Abram  aj)- 
pears  from  the  enlarged  promise,  of  which  it  furnishes 
the  occasion,  of  all  the  land  to  him  and  to  his  seed  forever, 
and  the  multiplication  of  his  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth 
(vs.  14-17).  The  thoroughly  arbitrary  manner  in  which 
the  critics  deal  with  the  text,  rejecting  from  it  whatever 


SEPAKATIOX   FROM   LOT   (CII.    XIII.)  193 

does  not  correspond  with  their  preconceived  notions,  may 
be  illustrated  by  "Wellhausen's  treatment  of  this  passage. 
He  says  :  ■  "Grounds  of  a  general  natui'e,  which  will  con- 
vince few,  move  me  to  regard  xiii.  14-17  as  a  later  addi- 
tion. It  is  not  the  habit  of  J  to  let  God  speak  so  without 
ceremony  to  the  patriarchs  ;  he  is  always  particular  to  nar- 
rate a  theophany  in  a  place  precisely  indicated,  which  is 
then  hallowed  by  this  appearing  for  all  time."  To  this 
Dillmann  very  properly  replies  that  xii.  1  is  of  itself  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  God  does  not  always  speak  to  Abram 
in  theophanies  in  the  passages  assigned  to  J  ;  besides 
the  place  in  which  the  present  communication  was  made 
is  designated  (xiii.  3,  4).  It  may  be  added  fm'ther,  that 
the  notion  of  Wellhausen  and  other  critics  that  the  stories 
of  divine  manifestations  to  the  patriarchs  originated  in 
the  local  sanctuaries  of  later  times,  inverts  the  order  of 
cause  and  effect.  It  was  not  the  sanctity  attached  to 
certain  spots  b}^  the  Israelites  which  gave  rise  to  the 
stories  of  the  theophanies ;  but  it  was  the  fact  of  these 
theophanies  and  the  sacred  associations  thence  resulting 
which  led  to  the  establishment  of  illegitimate  worship  in 
these  places  in  after-ages. 

MAKES  OF  J 

This  chapter,  exclusive  of  the  verses  referred  to  P  and 
R,  is  claimed  for  J  on  two  gi'ounds,  viz.  : 

(1)  Its  allusions  to  other  J  passages,  e.g.,  "garden  of 
the  Lord,"  ver.  10  to  chs.  ii.,  iii. ;  the  wickedness  of 
Sodom,  ver.  13  to  ch.  xix. 

But  apart  from  the  fact  that  these  J  passages  did  not 
themselves  belong  to  an  independent  document,  the  chap- 
ter is  likewise  linked  to  so-called  P  passages  ;  to  xix.  29 
P,  which  implies  Lot's  separation  from  Abram  and  his  re- 

'  Composition  d.  Hexateucbs,  p.  23. 
13 


194  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

moval  to  the  cities  of  the  plain  here  recorded.  The  attempt 
is  indeed  made  to  evade  this  by  slicing  vs.  6,  lib,  12a,  from 
the  rest  of  the  narrative  ;  but  this  has  been  shown  to  be 
impracticable.  Also  to  xxiii.  2,  19  ;  xxxv.  27  P,  which 
imply  the  record  in  xiii.  18,  that  Abram  made  his  home 
in  "  Mamre  which  is  in  Hebron." 

(2)  The  occurrence  in  vs.  8,  9, 14-17,  of  words  and  ex- 
pressions which  are  used  in  J  elsewhere. 

1.  i?3  I  pray  thee  (vs.  8,  9,  14).  See  under  ch.  xii.  10- 
20,  Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

2.  X^irr^  go  to  the  right,  b^i^'atpn  go  to  the  left  (ver.  9) ; 
these  verbs  occur  nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch ;  the  con- 
trast of  right  and  left  occurs  Gen.  xxiv.  49 ;  Num.  xxii. 
26  J ;  Num.  xx.  17  E ;  Ex.  xiv.  22,  29  P  ;  and  repeatedly  in 
Deuteronomy ;  also  in  Josh.  i.  7 ;  xxiii.  6,  which  Dill- 
mann  refers  to  D. 

3.  Vs.  14-17  belong  to  the  progressive  series  of  prom- 
ises given  by  Jehovah  to  Abram,  and  naturally  deal  in 
the  same  or  equivalent  j^hrases.  Thus  the  four  points  of 
the  compass,  N.,  S.,  E.,  W.,  as  in  a  like  connection,  xxviii. 
14,  where,  however,  Wellhausen  suspects  a  different 
writer  because  the  order  is  W.,  E.,  N.,  S. ;  "  thy  seed 
as  the  dust  of  the  earth,"  as  xxviii.  14  ;  "  not  to  be  count- 
ed," as  XV.  5  ;  xxxii.  13  (E.  V.,  12) ;  Num.  xxiii.  10. 

But  words  and  phrases  reckoned  peculiar  to  P  are  also 
found  in  the  J  portion  of  this  chapter. 

1""5>&Tab  on  his  journeys  (ver.  3) ;  both  the  word  and  the 
form  are  said  to  be  characteristic  of  P  ;  this  form  of  the 
word  occurs  exclusively  in  P  (Ex.  xvii.  1 ;  xl.  36,  38  ; 
Num.  X.  6,  12 ;  xxxiii.  2) ;  a  like  use  of  the  same  prepo- 
sition and  a  suffix  with  other  nouns  is  held  to  be  a  mark 
of  P  in  Gen.  viii.  19 ;  x.  5,  20,  31,  32  ;  ysia  is  found  be- 
sides in  P,  in  other  constructions,  in  Num.  x.  2,  28  ;  xxxiii. 
1 ;  but  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament  except  Deut. 
X.  11. 


ABRAM'S   rescue   of   lot   (CH.    XIV.)  195 

-insp  to  he  separated  (vs.  9,  14),  was  claimed  as  a  mark 
of  P  in  distinctiou  from  J  in  Gen.  x.  5,  32. 

"  The  land  is  before  thee  "  (ver.  9)  has  its  only  paral- 
lels in  xxxiv.  10  ;  xlvii.  6  (P),  and  xx.  15  (E). 

"  The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land  "  (xii.  6),  and 
"The  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  dwelled  then  in  the 
laud  "  (xiii,  7),  are  not  later  glosses,  since  they  are  closely 
connected  with  the  paragraphs  in  which  they  stand,  as 
has  been  already  shown ;  nor  are  they  indications  of  the 
post-Mosaic  origin  of  the  narrative.  They  contain  no 
implication  that  the  Canaanites  and  Perizzites  had  passed 
away.  It  is  quite  as  natural  to  say,  "  The  Canaanites 
were  then  in  the  land  as  they  still  are,"  as  to  say,  "  The 
Canaanites  were  then  in  the  land,  but  are  there  no 
longer." 

The  proof  already  given  of  the  unity  and  continuity  of 
this  chapter  renders  it  unnecessary  to  examine  in  detail 
Knobel's  enlargement  of  P  or  Schrader's  subdivision  of 
J.  These  are  of  interest  only  as  showing  the  facility 
with  which  documents  can  be  subdivided  or  the  lines  of 
partition  changed. 

ABRAM's   rescue   of  lot   (CH.   XIV.) 

Astruc  set  the  example  of  referrmg  ch.  xiv.  to  another 
source  than  the  principal  documents  of  Genesis,  as  he 
did  every  passage  which  concerned  foreign  tribes  or 
nations.  The  critics  complain  that  it  is  disconnected 
and  out  of  harmony  with  what  precedes  and  follows 
in  its  representation  of  Abram,  but  without  good  rea- 
son. The  dignity  of  his  position  corresponds  with  the 
statements  elsewhere  made.  The  greatness  of  Abram's 
retinue  is  remarked  (xii.  5,  16  ;  xiii.  G,  7).  The  children 
of  Heth  treat  him  as  a  mighty  prince  or  a  prince  of  God 
(xxiii.  6).     The  king  of  the  Philistines  and  the  general 


196  THE   GENERATIONS   OF  TERAH 

of  his  army  court  his  alliance  (xxi.  22  sqq.).  It  is  in  per- 
fect accord  Avith  this  that  he  is  here  said  to  have  mus- 
tered three  hundred  and  eighteen  trained  men  (ver.  14 ; 
cf.  xxxiii.  1) ;  that  he  was  confederate  with  native  princes 
(ver.  13)  ;  that  as  the  head  of  a  clan,  in  contrast  with 
other  tribes  or  nations,  he  is  called  Abram  the  Hebrew 
(ver.  13  ;  cf.  1  Sam.  xiii.  3,  7  ;  xiv.  21).  This  appellation 
is  justified  by  the  situation  and  does  not  require  EwakVs 
assumption  that  the  narrative  is  from  a  Canaanitish  orig- 
inal. His  generous  regard  for  Lot  (ver.  14),  his  magna- 
nimity and  disinterestedness  (vs.  21-24),  agree  with  xiii. 
8,  9.  His  life  had  been  peaceful  hitherto,  but  he  adapts 
himself  to  this  new  emergency.  The  land  had  been 
given  him  with  new  emphasis  in  all  its  length  and 
breadth  (xiii.  15,  17),  and  it  is  quite  in  place  that  he 
should  act  as  its  champion  and  defender  from  invasion 
and  pillage.  The  exhortation  and  the  military  emblem 
(xv.  1)  seem  to  be  suggested  by  his  late  conflict. 

The  critics  find  their  chief  perplexity,  however,  in  the 
fact  that  this  chapter  is  related  to  all  the  documents,  and 
cannot  be  brought  into  harmony  with  any  one.  It  has 
the  difiuseness  and  particularity  of  P  in  vs.  8,  9,  the  P 
words  tJ^DI  goods  (vs.  11,  12,  16,  21),  ITB?  soul  for  per- 
sons (ver.  21),  irria  '^yh'^  hoy^n  in  the  house  (ver.  14),  as 
xvii.  12,  13,  23,  27  ;  Lev.  xxii.  11 ;  calls  Lot  Abram's 
brother's  son  (ver.  12),  as  xi.  27,  31 ;  xii.  5.  At  the  same 
time  it  has  the  J  words  nirT^  Jehovah  (ver  22),  DSnpb  to 
meet  (ver.  17),  1\T\^  blessed  (vs.  19,  20);  brings  Abram 
into  connection  with  Salem  or  Jerusalem,  the  futui'e  site 
of  the  temple,  to  whose  priest  he  pays  tithes  (vs.  18-20), 
(which  is  held  to  be  indicative  of  J,  who  is  reputed  to  be- 
long to  Judah) ;  calls  Lot  Abram's  brother  (ver.  14), 
as  xiii.  8  ;  speaks  of  him  as  dwelling  in  Sodom  (ver.  12), 
as  xiii.  12b;  and  Abram  as  dwelling  by  the  oaks  of 
Mamre  (ver.  13),  as  xiii.  18  ;  connects  Admah  and  Zeboiim 


ABRAM's   rescue  of   lot   (CH.    XIV.)  197 

with  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (vs.  2,  8),  as  x.  19,  and  Zoar, 
as  xix.  23,  while  yet  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  are  accorded 
the  precedence  (vs.  10,  11),  and  particularly  Sodom  (vs. 
17,  21,  22),  as  xiii.  10 ;  xviii.  20,  26  ;  ch.  xix.     With  all 
this  it  has  several  words  which  occur  nowhere  else  in  the 
Pentateuch  ;  ^i^b?  bs  God3Iost  High  (vs.  18-20,  22);  ]5)a 
io  deliver  (ver.  20)  ;  nu^^n  to  make  rich  (ver.  23) ;  or  in 
the   Old  Testament  f-isyn:'^a?  HDp  possessor  of  heaven 
and  earth  (vs.  19,  2'£)';^rn'}2  "^k^  confederate  (ver.  13); 
tj^sn  trained  (ver.  14) ;  p^nn  dreiv  out  said  of  men  (ver.  14) ; 
also  several  antique  or  peculiar  names  of  places  :  Bela 
for  Zoar  (vs.  2,  8),  vale  of  Siddim  (vs.  3,  8,  10),  Aslite- 
roth-karnaim  (ver.  5),  Zuzim,  probably  for  Zamzummim 
(ver.  5),  El  Paran  (ver.  6),  En-mishpat  for  Kadesh  (ver. 
7),  Hazazou-tamar  for  Engedi  (ver.  7),  vale  of  Shaveh  for 
the  King's  Yale  (ver.  17),  Salem  for  Jerusalem  (ver."  18). 
Such  unusual  words  and  names  are  thought  to  point  to 
E ;  so  the  alliance  with  native  princes  (ver.  13),^  as  xxi. 
32,  and  the  warlike  achievement  (ver.  15),  as  xlviii.  22,  as 
well  as  the  E  words  ^yjb^  nothing  for  me  (ver.  24),  the 
Amorite  instead  of  Canaanite  (vs.  7,  13),  as  Num.  xxi. 
21 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  8,  12 ;  likewise  tj^bs  escaped  (ver.  13),  and 
-inia  rebelled  (ver.  4),  which  Schrader  reckons  peculiar  to 
E,  but  Dillmaun  does  not. 

Noldeke  undertakes  to  prove  the  narrative  to  be  alto- 
gether fictitious,  and  several  of  the  names  to  be  the  in- 
vention of  the  writer.  He  adopts  the  Eabbinical  conceit 
that  Bera,  king  of  Sodom,  is  from  yn  evil ;  and  Birsha, 
king  of  Gomorrah,  from  ytcn  wickedness  ;  and  he  appears 
to  approve  the  Samaritan  conversion  of  Shemeber,  king 
of  Zeboiim,  into  Shemebed,  ivhose  name  has  perished, 
though  he  shrinks  from  resolving  Shiuab,  king  of  Admah, 
with  the  Jerusalem  Targum  into  nij  KSil)  father-hater. 
The  object  of  the  story  he  conceives  to  be  to  glorify 
Abram  as  a  conqueror.     From  the  allusions  to  it  in  Ps. 


198  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

Ixxvi.  3,  E.  V.  2  (Salem),  ex.  (Melcliizedek),  Hos.  xi.  8  (^a-Q 
deliver,  Admah,  Zeboiim),  he  infers  that  it  could  not  have 
been  written  later  than  800  B.C.  Kuenen  ("  Hexateuch," 
p.  324)  also  makes  it  absolutely  mihistorical,  intended  in 
vs.  18-20  "  to  glorify  the  priesthood  of  Jerusalem  and  to 
justify  their  claiming  tithes,"  and  borrowed  by  the  final 
redactor  of  the  Pentateuch  from  "  a  postexilian  version 
of  Abram's  life,  a  midrash."  Monumental  evidence  has, 
however,  established  the  historical  character  of  the  names 
Arioch,  EUasar,  Chedorlaomer,^  and,  perhaps,  Amraphel,^ 
as  well  as  of  invasions  and  conquests  stretching  westward 
at  that  early  date.  To  evade  this,  E.  Meyer  propounded 
the  extraordinary  hypothesis  that  a  writer  in  the  exile 
became  acquainted  with  the  names  of  these  ancient 
kings,  and  invented  this  story  which  brought  Abram 
into -contact  with  them. 

It  is  thus  settled  beyond  reasonable  contradiction  that 
this  chapter  stands  on  historic  ground.  Its  postexilic 
origin  is  accordingly  impossible.  This  is  an  effectual 
bar  to  Wellhausen's  proposed  solution  of  its  eclectic  rela- 
tion to  the  several  documents,  and  especially  its  use  of 
the  diction  of  P,  by  assuming  that  it  must  have  been 
produced  not  by  J,  E,  or  P,  but  by  a  redactor  subse- 
quent to  them  all ;  and  in  his  view  P  is  itself  postexilic. 
The  definiteness  and  precision  of  its  statements,  coupled 
with  the  unusual  number  of  ancient  names  requiring  ex- 
planation, which  are  here  grouped  together,  compel  to 
the  assumption  that  this  belongs  to  a  very  early  date. 
Dillmann  attributes  it  to  E,  the  explanatory  glosses  hav- 
ing been  added  by  a  later  hand.  This  obliges  him  to 
explain  away  the  marks  of  P  and  J  as  interpolations,  or 
as  of  no  significance,  and  to  reject  vs.  17-20  as  no  part 
of  the  original  narrative,     Knobel  refers  it  to  an  ancient 

'  Schrader  :  Keilinscliriften  und  das  Alte  Testament. 
*  Hommel,  quoted  by  Delitzscli. 


abram's  rescue  of  lot  (en.  xiv.)  199 

source,  of  wliicli  J  availed  himself,  and  to  which  he  added 
the  necessary  explanations  by  introducing  modern  names 
where  the  older  ones  had  become  unintelligible.  To  this 
Delitzsch  gives  his  assent.  This  accounts  for  the  ar- 
chaic names  and  expressions  and  for  the  marks  of  J,  which 
the  chapter  contains ;  but  it  leaves  without  explanation 
the  marks  of  P,  which,  though  emphasized  elsewhere,  must 
here  be  treated  as  of  no  account  or  set  aside  as  later  ad- 
ditions to  the  text.  The  natural  and  obvious  explanation 
of  the  whole  matter,  to  which  the  critics  determinedly  shut 
their  eyes,  is  that  these  alleged  criteria  of  distinct  docu- 
ments are  not  such,  after  all,  but  are  freely  used  as  occa- 
sion requires  by  one  and  the  same  writer,  and  in  the 
same  piece  of  composition. 

Dillmann  rejects  for  no  other  reason  than  that  they 
contravene  his  hypothesis  vs.  17-20,  Jehovah  in  ver. 
22,  and  "  Admah  and  Zeboiim  "  in  x.  19,  as  later  addi- 
tions to  the  text,  and  claims  that  the  allusions  to  ch.  xiii. 
imply  acquaintance  with  that  chapter,^  but  not  that  ch. 
xiv.  is  by  the  same  author  ;  whereas  the  use  of  the 
phrase  "  the  vale  of  Siddim  "  (vs.  3,  8,  10),  instead  of 
"  the  plain  of  Jordan,"  as  xiii.  10,  11,  shows  them  to  be 
by  different  writers.  But  the  vale  of  Siddim  is  not  iden- 
tical with  the  plain  of  the  Jordan  ;  it  is  (ver.  3)  expressly 
declared  to  be  only  that  part  of  it  which  was  subse- 
quently covered  by  the  "  Salt  Sea,"  that  is,  the  Dead 
Sea.  The  expression  used  is  different  because  the  object 
to  be  denoted  was  different.  No  inference  can  be  drawn 
from  it,  consequently,  against  the  presumption  of  iden- 
tity of  authorship  created  by  the  connection  of  the  nar- 
rative, the  agreement  as  to  the  situation  and  the  charac- 

'  As  he  holds  that  B  is  older  than  J,  E  could  not  in  his  opinion  have 
referred  to  J.  He  is  obliged,  therefore,  to  assume  that  the  allusions  to 
ch.  xiii.  were  no  part  of  ch.  xiv.  originally,  but  are  later  additions  to 
its  text. 


200  THE   GETTERATIOJSrS   OF   TERAH 

ter  of  Abram,  the  correspondence  of  diction,   and  the 
direct  allusions. 

The  P  words  are  waived  aside  in  a  similar  manner. 
"  Born  in  his  house  "  (ver.  14)  is  pronounced  a  later  ad- 
dition. Such  fulness  of  detail  in  any  but  ritual  and  legal 
matters  is  said  not  to  accord  with  P's  usage  elsewhere, 
and  the  style  of  the  chapter  is  not  his  ;  which  simply 
means  that  the  critics  have  arbitrarily  partitioned  the 
text  of  the  Pentateuch  between  what  is  ritual  and  legal 
on  the  one  hand  and  narrative  on  the  other,  as  though 
no  writer  could  produce  more  than  one  species  of  com- 
position, and  the  diversity  of  style  due  to  a  difference  of 
matter  were  proof  of  distinct  authors.  ICIDT  goods,  and 
t?S]  soul,  in  the  sense  of  "  person,"  which  are  elsewhere 
declared  to  be  such  evident  marks  of  P  as  to  stamp  a 
verse  as  his,  though  in  a  J  connection,  are  here  passed 
over  lightly,  as  though  they  had  no  such  significance. 
Thus  Delitzsch  says  that  "  TlJ^D'i  is  no  specific  criterion  ; 
it  is  found  in  xv.  14,  a  promise  recorded  by  J  or  E  (Dill- 
mann  says  E),  and  at  any  rate  not  by  P,  and  it  expresses 
an  idea  for  which  the  Biblical  language  has  no  other 
word."  And  Dillmann  says  :  "  One  could  hardly  help 
using  llJS?  for  persons  of  both  sexes,  free  and  slave."  If, 
then,  these  are  the  proper  words  and  the  only  words  to 
express  a  given  meaning,  such  as  any  ordinary  speaker 
or  writer  might  upon  occasion  have  to  employ,  how  can 
they  possibly  be  classed  as  characteristic  of  one  docu- 
ment rather  than  another?  And  if  not  here,  neither 
can  they  be  elsewhere.  But  it  is  said  that  ver.  13  says 
"  the  oaks  of  Mamre,"  as  xiii.  18 ;  xviii.  1 ;  while  P  inva- 
riably says  simply,  "  Mamre."  So  he  does  (xxiii.  17,  19  ; 
XXV.  9  ;  xlix.  30 ;  1. 13)  when  speaking,  not  of  the  residence 
of  Abram,  but  of  the  location  of  the  cave  of  Machpelah 
"  before  Mamre,"  and  (xxxv.  27)  when  speaking  of  Jacob's 
coming  "  to  Mamre,  to  Kiriath-arba  (the  same  is  He- 


abeam' S   RESCUE   OF   LOT   (CH.   XIV.)  201 

bron),  where  Abraham  and  Isaac  sojourned."  The  exact 
spot  where  Abram  dwelt  was  "  by  the  oaks  of  Mamre  ; " 
but  when  the  district  so  named  is  referred  to  in  general, 
as  a  matter  of  course  the  oaks  are  not  spoken  of.  This 
surely  is  no  indication  of  different  writers. 

In  recording  this  very  significant  event  in  the  life  of 
the  great  patriarch  the  writer  has  taken  pains  to  preserve 
the  names  of  localities,  and,  as  it  would  appear,  to  some 
extent,  the  use  of  terms  as  they  were  at  the  time  referred 
to,  introducing  in  a  supplementary  way  the  more  modern 
names  by  which  they  had  been  superseded,  or  some  ex- 
planatory phrase  when  necessary  for  the  sake  of  clear- 
ness, as  vs.  2,  3,  6,  7,  8,  15,  17.  In  one  instance  he  uses 
a  name  current  in  his  own  time  proleptically,  perhaps  for 
the  reason  that  no  other  expressed  his  meaning  so  exactly. 
Thus  he  says  (vs.  5-7)  that  the  invaders  smote  the  Ee- 
phaim,  and  Zuzim,  and  Emim,  and  Horites,  and  Amorites, 
and  "  the  country  of  the  Amalekites."  His  meaning  is  here 
carefully  guarded  by  the  altered  form  of  expression.  They 
smote  not  the  Amalekites,  who  derived  their  name  from 
the  grandson  of  Esau  (xxxvi.  12),  and  accordingly  were 
not  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Abram,  but  the  region 
subsequently  occupied  by  them. 

At  first  sight  it  might  appear  as  though  "  Dan  "  (ver. 
14)  was  to  be  similarly  explained.  It  is  natural  to  think 
of  the  Dan  so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  later  Script- 
ures, which  first  received  this  name  after  the  occupatio)! 
of  Canaan  (Judg.  xviii.  29 ;  Josh.  xix.  47),  having  pre- 
viously been  called  Laish.  And  on  this  ground  it  has 
been  urged  that  this  could  not  have  been  written  by  Mo- 
ses.    But — 

1.  It  seems  extremely  improbable  that  the  analogy  of 
the  entire  chapter,  which  on  this  interpretation  would  re- 
quire "  Laish,  the  same  is  Dan,"  should  be  violated  in 
this  one  instance  without  any  intimation  of  it,  the  origi- 


202  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

nal  name  being  discarded,  and  the  recent  one  not  added 
to  it  by  way  of  explanation,  but  substituted  for  it.  It  is 
more  in  keeping  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  chapter  to 
suppose  that  it  was  not  the  Dan-Laish  of  later  times, 
which  was  intended,  but  a  place  so  called  in  the  time  of 
Abram,  perhaps  named  from  this  very  event,  in  which 
God  maintained  the  righteous  cause  of  his  servant  (Dan 
=  judge  ;  see  xv.  14),  and  possibly  perpetuated  in  the 
Dan-jaan  of  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6,  cf.  also  Dent,  xxxiv.  1. 

2.  If  the  Dan  of  later  times  is  here  meant,  the  strong 
probability  is  that  the  older  name  was  in  the  original 
text,  and  in  the  course  of  transcription  one  more  familiar 
was  substituted  for  it.  The  proofs  of  Mosaic  authorship 
are  too  numerous  and  strong  to  be  outweighed  by  a  triv- 
ialty  like  this.  Critics  whose  hypothesis  requires  the 
assumption  of  textual  changes  of  the  most  serious  nature 
cannot  consistently  deny  that  there  may  be  occasion  for 
a  slight  correction  here. 


PROMISE  AND  COVENANT  OF  JEHOVAH  (CH.  XV.) 

Most  of  the  earlier  critics  refer  the  whole  of  this  chap- 
ter to  J.  Knobel  attributed  both  ch.  xiv.  and  xv.  to  what 
he  called  the  Kriegsbuch,  or  Book  of  Wars,  one  of  the 
sources  from  which  he  imagined  that  J  drew  his  materials. 
Wellhausen,  and  others  since,  undertake  the  partition  of 
the  chapter,  and  base  it  on  certain  alleged  incongruities 
which  have  no  real  existence.     It  is  charged  that — 

1.  There  is  a  discrepancy  in  resj)ect  to  time.  Accord- 
ing to  ver.  5,  it  is  in  the  night  and  the  stars  are  visible ; 
but  vs.  7-11  imply  that  it  is  in  the  day ;  in  ver.  12a,  the 
sun  is  setting,  and  ver.  17,  it  has  gone  down. 

But  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  any  one  can  imagine  a 
difficulty  here.  The  transaction  described  required  time. 
The  vision  (ver.  1)  occurred  in  the  night  or  in  the  early 


THE   COVENANT  OF  JEHOVAH  (CH.  XV.)    203 

morning,  when  the  stars  still  appeared  in  the  sky  (ver.  5). 
A  fresh  communication  was  made  to  Abram  (vs.  7  sqq.), 
which,  whether  it  followed  the  preceding  immediately  or 
after  an  interval,  contained  directions  that  could  only  be 
executed  in  the  daytime.  Five  animals  were  to  be  taken 
and  slain,  properly  prepared  and  divided,  and  the  parts 
suitably  adjusted.  This  would  occupy  a  portion  of  the 
day,  and  during  the  remainder  of  it  he  guarded  the  pieces 
from  the  birds  of  prey.  Then  came  sunset  with  the  pro- 
phetic disclosure  (vs.  12-16),  and  finally  darkness  with 
the  symbolic  ratification  of  the  covenant.  The  narrative 
is  consistent  throughout  and  develops  regularly  from 
first  to  last. 

2.  A  vision  is  announced  in  ver.  1,  but  it  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  continued  through  the  chapter. 

Knobel  thinks  that  the  vision  does  not  begin  till  ver. 
12,  and  ends  with  ver.  16.  This  is  plainly  a  mistake ; 
the  communication  in  ver.  1  is  expressly  said  to  have 
been  made  in  a  vision.  Whether  all  the  communications 
in  the  chapter  were  similarly  made,  and  only  vs.  10,  11 
belong  to  Abram's  ordinary  state,  or  whether  the  vision 
is  limited  to  vs.  1-6,  as  "Wellhausen  supposes,  it  may  be 
difficult  to  determine,  and  it  is  of  no  account  as  nothing 
is  dependent  on  the  mode  in  which  the  revelation  was 
given. 

3.  Ver.  8  is  inconsistent  with  ver.  6.  In  the  latter 
Abram  is  said  to  have  believed  the  Loed  ;  and  yet  he 
asks  in  the  former  for  a  visible  token  of  the  truth  of 
God's  word. 

But  this  request  does  not  indicate  doubt  or  distrust, 
but  rather  a  desire  for  a  more  complete  assurance  and  a 
fresh  confirmation  of  his  faith  in  the  fulfilment  of  prom- 
ises so  far  transcending  all  natm-al  expectation. 

On  the  grounds  above  stated  Wellhausen  assigns  vs. 
1-6  to  E ;  and  vs.  7-12,  17,  18,  to  J,  ver.  7  having  been 


204  THE  GENERATIONS   OF  TERAH 

modified,  a  clause  inserted  in  ver.  12,  and  vs.  13-16  be- 
ing no  part  of  the  original  text,  but  added  in  the  first  in- 
stance after  vs.  17,  18,  and  then  transposed  to  its  present 
position  ;  vs.  19-21  being  also  a  later  addition.  He 
urges  that  the  clause,  "  a  deep  sleep  fell  upon  Abram," 
does  not  belong  to  ver.  12,  for,  though  congruous  to  vs. 
13-16,  it  is  not  so  to  vs.  17,  18,  a  consideration  which 
might  have  led  him  to  see  that  those  verses  are  in  their 
proper  place,  and  the  only  incongruity  is  one  of  his  own 
creating. 

The  revelation  by  vision  (ver.  1)  is,  on  critical  princi- 
ples, referred  to  E  (though  TXITTQ  vision,  occurs  besides  in 
the  Pentateuch  oulj^  in  Num.  xxiv.  4,  16  J) ;  and  this  is 
supposed  to  be  confirmed  by  the  naming  of  Eliezer  (ver. 
2),  whereas  J  does  not  give  his  name  (xxiv.  2  sqq. — the 
identity  of  the  persons  being  commonly  assumed) ;  also 
by  the  phrase,  "  after  these  things  "  (ver.  1),  which  occurs 
in  E,  xxii.  1  ;  xl.  1  ;  xlviii.  1,  but  also  in  J,  xxii.  20,  xxxix. 
7,  and  even  in  P,  Josh.  xxiv.  29,  unless  it  is  confessed  that 
P  is  not  alone  in  stating  ages.  The  only  escape  from  this 
dilemma  is  by  the  absurd  division  of  Schrader,  who  in  the 
verse  last  named  assigns  "  and  it  came  to  pass  after  these 
things  "  to  E,  and  all  the  rest  to  P.  Jehovah  occurs  four 
times  in  the  first  six  verses,  though  by  critical  rules  E 
ought  always  to  say  Elohim,  never  Jehovah.  It  is  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  assume  that  E,  has  changed  those  names. 
There  are  also  some  of  P's  expressions  i;s>5  (not  "ipbsj;  J) ; 
Ot'iir'3  n^X  Ur  of  the  Ghaldees  (ver.  7),  CDI  goods  (ver.  14), 
naii:  n^itpS  in  a  good  old  age  (ver.  15 ;  see  xxv.  8),  not  to 
speak  of  the  chronological  statement,  ver.  13.  Hence  it 
is  again  necessary  to  assume  that  the  verses  that  contain 
them  have  been  either  altered  or  inserted  by  R,  whose 
office  it  is  to  rectify  whatever  is  at  variance  with  the  hy- 
pothesis. "  Come  forth  out  of  thy  bowels,"  D'^5'12  (ver.  4), 
sounds  like  a  variation   upon  "  come   forth  out  of   thy 


THE  COVENANT  OF  JEHOVAH  (CH.  XV.)    205 

loins,"  a  phrase  which  P  uses  in  two  forms  (xxxv.  11, 
U^^bn ;  xlvi.  26  ;  Ex.  i.  5,  !jn^),  and  he  might  easily  be  sup- 
posed to  add  a  third.  At  any  rate  no  phrase  at  all  ap- 
proaching it  is  elsewhere  referred  to  E  ;  xxv.  23  is  as- 
signed to  J.  The  animals  (ver.  9)  are  precisely  those 
admissible  for  sacrifice  under  the  ritual  law  (P),  and  not 
dividing  the  birds  accords  with  Lev.  i.  17.  "  The  word 
of  Jehovah  came "  (vs.  1,  4)  is  a  phrase  familiar  in  the 
prophets,  but  occurring  nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch ; 
it  certainly  cannot  be  claimed,  therefore,  as  character- 
istic of  E.  The  inhabitants  of  the  land  are  called  Amor- 
ites  (ver.  16),  while  J  calls  them  Canaanites  and  Periz- 
zites  (xii.  6,  xiii.  7)  ;  but  if  this  is  the  mark  of  a  different 
writer,  how  could  E,  who  designates  them  as  in  ver.  16, 
have  likewise  written  vs.  19-21? 

Dillmann  in  his  1st  edition  (Knobel's  3d)  ascribed  the 
entire  chapter  to  R,  who  had  introduced  expressions  of 
P  as  well  as  of  J,  and  based  his  narrative  partly  on  E,  a 
combination  which  could  not  well  be  disposed  of  from 
the  critical  point  of  view  in  any  other  way.  In  his  2d 
edition  (Knobel's  4th)  he  rids  himself  of  most  of  the  P 
elements  by  assigning  vs.  7,  12-16,  to  E.,  and  then  gives 
vs.  3,  5,  6,  to  J,  and  vs.  1,  2,  4,  8,  9-11,  17,  18,  to  E,  and 
vs.  19-21  either  to  E  or  R.  By  the  portion  given  to  J 
his  partition  has  an  advantage  over  that  of  Wellhausen. 
Abram's  childlessness  and  the  promise  of  offspring  with- 
out naming  the  mother  (vs.  3,  5)  prepares  the  way  for 
the  affair  of  Hagar  (ch.  xvi.),  in  which  E  is  supposed  to 
have  no  share.  And  according  to  Ex.  xxxii.  13,  J,  God 
had  promised  Abraham  to  multiply  his  seed  as  the  stars 
of  heaven.  This  emblem  occurs  three  times  in  Genesis 
(xv.  5  ;  xxii.  17  ;  xxvi.  4).  By  common  critical  consent  the 
last  two  are  by  R,  who  was  posterior  to  J.  On  critical 
grounds,  therefore,  the  reference  could  only  be  to  xv.  5, 
so  that  this  must  have  belonged  to  J  and  not  to  E.     This 


206  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

partition  is,  however,  impracticable,  for  it  is  at  variance 
with  the  divine  names  ;  it  assigns  vs.  17,  18,  to  E  in  spite 
of  xxiv.  7,  J,  which  directly  refers  to  it ;  it  sunders  ver. 
4  from  ver.  3,  to  which  it  is  the  immediate  response  ;  it 
connects  ver.  8  with  ver.  4,  though  they  relate  to  mat- 
ters as  distinct  as  the  birth  of  his  child  and  the  23osses- 
sion  of  Canaan.  In  order  to  link  them  together  he  al- 
ters the  text  of  ver.  8  without  the  slightest  authority  from 
n3tD'1ii5  I  shall  inherit  if,  to  '^iTZJnii  he  shall  be  my  heir,  thus 
changing  its  subject  entirely.  But  his  OAvn  comment  on 
ver.  18  refutes  his  emendation  and  with  it  his  critical 
division  of  the  chapter.  Yer.  18  remarks  expressly  that 
by  the  transaction  from  ver.  9  onward  God  concluded  a 
covenant  with  Abram  in  relation  to  the  future  possession 
of  the  land.  This,  then,  is  what  the  sign  for  which  he 
asked  in  ver.  8  was  to  certify,  and  not  that  Abram's  own 
child  should  be  his  heir,  Ver.  8  cannot  therefore  con- 
nect with  ver.  4,  but  relates  to  a  different  subject.  Ac- 
cordingly it  is  not  surprising  that  in  his  3d  edition 
(Knobel's  5th)  Dillmann  abandons  his  previous  scheme, 
and  after  reviewing  what  others  have  attempted  in  the 
same  line  with  no  better  success,  pronounces  it  imprac- 
ticable to  separate  E  and  J  in  this  chapter.  He  im- 
agines that  J  made  use  of  a  narrative  of  E,  in  drawing 
up  this  account  of  a  covenant  with  Abram,  which  was 
subsequently  modified  by  E,  and  enlarged  by  him  or  by 
others  at  a  still  later  time.  All  this  rather  than  confess, 
what  this  confusion  of  documents  really  shows,  that  the 
alleged  criteria  of  J,  E,  and  P  are  not  marks  of  distinct 
writers,  but  are  employed  by  one  and  the  same  writer  as 
he  has  occasion. 

Budde  undertook  to  make  a  partition  in  accordance 
with  the  divine  names ;  and  regarding,  as  his  predeces- 
sors had  done,  vs.  12-16,  19-21,  as  later  additions,  he 
gave  to  J  vs.  1,  2a,  3b,  4, 6-11, 17, 18,  and  to  E  vs.  3a,  2b, 


THE  COVENANT  OF  JEHOVAH  (CH.  XV.)    207 

5.  He  thus  admits  that  "  after  these  things  "  (ver.  1)  is 
not  a  criterion  of  E,  that  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  is  Abram's 
original  home  in  J  (ver.  7)  as  well  as  in  P,  that  there  is 
no  contrariety  between  ver.  6  and  ver.  8  ;  but  because  of 
the  imaginary  conflict  in  time  between  ver.  17  and  ver.  5 
he  gives  the  latter  to  E  in  spite  of  Ex.  xxxii.  13,  and  he 
makes  a  singular  medley  of  vs.  2,  3.  Each  verse  is  split 
in  two,  the  first  clause  of  ver.  2  is  linked  with  the  last  of 
ver.  3,  and  the  intervening  clauses  are  referred  in  an  in- 
verted order  to  a  distinct  document. 

Kautzsch  and  Socin  follow  Budde  for  the  most  part, 
but  are  not  prepared  to  accept  his  juggling  with  vs.  1-3, 
which  they  refer  to  JE  without  attempting  to  indicate 
what  belongs  to  each.  Kittel  tries  to  help  the  matter  by 
giving  ver.  2  to  E  and  ver.  3  to  J,  but  it  is  in  defiance  of 
Jehovah  in  ver.  2.  So  that  there  is  no  resource  but  to 
adopt  the  explanation  of  Dillmann  in  his  first  edition 
that  the  author  himself  interprets  in  ver.  3  the  somewhat 
antiquated  and  obscure  expressions  of  ver.  2.  The  repe- 
tition of  the  thought  has  not  arisen  from  the  blending  of 
two  documents,  but  from  the  writer's  desire  to  render  an 
ancient  and  remarkable  phrase  here  employed  more  in- 
telligible to  his  readers. 

Delitzsch  very  properly  contends  that  vs.  12-16  cannot 
be  an  addition  by  R,  because  it  is  intimately  related  to 
vs.  9-11,  of  which  it  gives  a  symbolic  explanation  ;  and 
it  is  besides  preliminary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
promise  in  ver.  18.  Kittel  also  asserts  the  unity  and 
continuity  of  vs.  7-18,  but  needlessly  assumes  that  it 
originally  stood  in  a  different  connection. 

The  enumeration  of  ten  nations  in  Canaan  is  peculiar 
to  vs.  19-21,  other  passages  naming  seven,  six,  or  fewer 
still.  But  as  Delitzsch  rightly  maintains,  this  is  no  rea- 
son for  disputing  its  originality  here. 

There  is,  after  all,  no  break  in  this  chapter.     Two  dis- 


208  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

tinct  promises  are  made  in  it ;  but  they  are  closely 
related,  and  are  in  fact  interwoven  tlirougliont  the  patri- 
archal history.  And  the  conspicuous  failure  of  the 
critics  to  eflect  an  analysis  makes  the  evidence  of  its 
unity  more  signal  and  complete.  Driver  only  ventures 
the  vague  remark  :  "  Cli.  xv.  shows  signs  of  composition  ; 
but  the  criteria  are  indecisive,  and  no  generally  accepted 
analysis  has  been  offered."  It  is  plain  enough  that  no 
partition  of  the  chapter  has  been  found  possible.  The 
signs  of  its  composite  character  are  hard  to  discover. 
Its  lack  of  conformity  to  any  one  of  the  so-called  docu- 
ments discredits  those  documents,  not  the  unity  of  the 
chapter. 

BIRTH    OF   ISHMAEL    (CH.    XVI.) 

The  motive  by  which  the  critics  are  influenced  in 
giving  a  fraction  of  this  chapter  to  P  is  thus  frankly  ac- 
knowledged by  Dillmann,  who  says  :  "  Inasmuch  as  the 
existence  of  Ishmael  is  presupposed  by  P  in  xvii.  18  sqq., 
he  must  previously  have  mentioned  his  birth."  The  con- 
sistency of  the  hypothesis  demands  it.  And  yet,  though 
Ilgen  (1798)  had  anticipated  the  division  of  the  chapter 
now  currently  adopted,  Tuch  (1838)  and  Stahelin  (1843) 
still  gave  the  whole  to  J.  In  P,  according  to  the  former 
(p.  Ixiv.),  "  we  only  learn  incidentally  in  xxi.  9  (which  he 
gave  to  P,  but  recent  critics  to  E),  that  Ishmael  was  the 
son  of  an  Egyptian  maid."  And  all  that  the  latter  can 
say  '  is,  "  It  is  possible  that  P  may  have  related  some- 
thing about  the  barrenness  of  Sarah,  about  Hagar,  and 
the  birth  of  Ishmael,  which  was  dropped  because  J's 
fuller  narrative  was  put  in  its  place."  Hupf eld's  anal- 
ysis, adopted  from  Ilgen,  is  now  commonly  followed,  viz. : 

P  xvi.  1  (?),  3,  15,  16 ;  J,  vs.  2,  4-14 

The  critics  are  puzzled  as  to  the  disposition  to  be  made 

'  Kritisclie  Uiitersucliungen,  p.  46. 


BIRTH   OF  ISHMAEL   (CH.   XVl.)  209 

of  ver.  1.  Knobel  and  Dillinann  (3clj  give  it  to  P ; 
Kautzsch  follows  Schrader  in  giving  la  to  P,  and  lb  to 
J  ;  Dillmann  (1st  and  2d)  agrees  with  Wellhausen  that 
the  whole  verse  is  J's ;  Hupfeld  seems  uncertain.  On 
the  one  hand  it  is  urged  that  "  Sarai,  Abram's  wife," 
"  Abram  her  husband,"  "Hagar  the  Egyptian,  her  hand- 
maid "  (ver.  3),  needlessly  repeat  what  is  contained  in 
ver.  1 ;  and  that  these  verses  must,  therefore,  be  from 
diflferent  sources.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  ver.  3  neces- 
sarily presupposes  a  previous  mention  of  Hagar  and  of 
Sarai's  childlessness,  such  as  is  found  in  ver.  1,  and  the 
identity  of  expressions  favors  sameness  of  authorship 
rather  than  the  reverse,  so  that  they  must  belong  to- 
gether. Sarai's  relation  to  Abram  is  not  here  mentioned 
for  the  first  time  in  either  document,  as  the  critics  divide 
them  (P,  xi.  31 ;  xii.  5  ;  J,  xi.  29  ;  xii.  11,  17).  It  is  not 
stated,  then,  for  the  sake  of  acquainting  the  reader  with 
a  fact  not  before  known.  But  it  is  reiterated  and  dwelt 
upon  at  this  juncture,  that  it  may  be  kept  before  the 
mind  in  order  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  situation. 
That  Hagar  was  an  handmaid  of  Sarai  and  an  Egyptian 
is  also  important  for  the  correct  comprehension  of  the 
subsequent  history.  Hence  it  is  not  only  repeated  here 
but  elsewhere  in  all  the  documents,  as  the  critics  regard 
them  (J,  xvi.  8;  E,  xxi.  9  ;  P,  xxv.  12).  There  is,  accord- 
ingly, no  escape  from  the  admission  of  repetitions  by  the 
same  writer  but  by  the  indefinite  multiplication  of  doc- 
uments. The  triple  statement  (xvi.  15,  16)  that  Hagar 
bare  Ishmael  is  not  due  to  some  supposed  diflfuseness  of 
style  on  the  part  of  P,  but  emphasizes  the  fact  that  he 
was  not  Sarai's  child. 

But  if  ver.  1  is  accorded  to  P,  because  presupposed  in 
ver.  3,  then  the  narrative  in  J  evidently  lacks  its  begin- 
ning.    It  has  no  suitable  introduction,  and  the  references 
to  Sarai's  handmaid  (ver.  2),  and  to  Hagar  (ver.  4),  imply 
14 


210  THE   GENERATIOTSrS   OF   TERAH 

that  she  had  been  spoken  of  before.  Even  splitting  ver. 
1  between  the  documents  will  not  mend  the  matter,  for, 
as  Kautzcli  admits,  "  Bj  the  reception  of  ver.  la  from  P, 
the  beginning  of  J's  text  is  cut  away."  Wellhausen  tries 
to  evade  this  difficulty  by  assuming  that  xi.  30  originally 
stood  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  and  belonged  to 
P.  But  such  a  transposition  is  unwarranted,  a  statement 
of  Sarai's  childlessness,  such  as  is  found  in  xi.  30,  is  ap- 
propriate at  the  beginning  of  Abram's  history,  is  needed 
to  set  the  initial  promise  (xii.  2)  in  its  proper  light,  is  a 
necessary  antecedent  to  xv.  2,  and  would  not  at  any  rate 
be  a  sufficient  introduction  to  xvi.  3,  where  Hagar,  her 
nationality,  and  her  relation  to  Sarai  are  presupposed  as 
already  known.  That  xvi.  la  repeats  xi.  30  is  not  sug- 
gestive of  distinct  documents  any  more  than  similar  rep- 
etitions which  abound  elsewhere.^  The  trial  of  Abram's 
faith  lay  largely  in  this  that  notwithstanding  the  repeated 
promises  of  a  numerous  offspring,  Sarai  continued  child- 
less. It  was  this  which  led  to  the  expedient  here  de- 
tailed. It  was  proper,  therefore,  that  this  fact,  though 
mentioned  before,  should  be  repeated  in  this  place. 

And  ver.  3  is  not  superfluous  after  ver.  2.  Sarai 
first  proposed  the  thing  to  Abram,  and  obtained  his  con- 
sent ;  she  then  took  measures  to  give  effect  to  her  scheme. 
By  sundering  these  verses  P  is  made  to  say  that  Sarai 

1  Compare  1  Sam.  i.  3  and  iv.  4  ;  ii.  11,  18,  iii.  1  ;  ii.  21b,  26,  iii.  19  ; 
xiii.  15b,  xiv.  2b;  xvi.  6-11,  xvii.  13,  14;  xvii.  2,  19;  x.w.  1, 
xxviii.  3  ;  2  Sam.  Ii.  11,  v.  5  ;  iii.  21c,  22c;  xiv.  24,  28;  1  Kin.  xiv. 
21c,  31b  ;  XV.  16,  32  ;  2  Kin.  i.  1,  iii.  5  ;  viii.  29,  ix.  15,  16.  These 
examples,  as  well  as  many  of  those  previously  given  are  adopted  from  an 
early  pviblication  of  Ewald,  his  Komposition  der  Genesis,  1823,  which  is 
still  worthy  of  attentive  perusal,  and  in  which  he  argues  more  wisely  than 
in  his  later  speculations.  There  is  much  trutli  in  his  suggestion  that 
many  of  the  critical  objections  to  the  unity  of  Genesis  arise  from  apply- 
ing to  it  modern  and  occidental  standards,  and  disregarding  the  usages 
of  Hebrew  historiography  and  that  of  the  ancient  Orient  generally. 


BIRTH   OF   ISHMAEL   (CH.    XVI.)  211 

imposed  her  maid  upon  Abram  without  having  spoken 
to  him  on  the  subject  or  gained  his  consent.  Neither  is 
verse  3  superfluous  before  verse  4.  Sarai  first  surren- 
ders her  maid  to  Abram,  he  then  treats  her  as  his  wife. 
.All  proceeds  in  regular  order  as  stated  in  the  text.  This 
is  not  overloaded,  and  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  the 
intrusion  of  foreign  matter  in  the  narrative. 

The  dates  (vs.  3,  16)  do  not  indicate  another  writer 
than  the  author  of  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  except  on  the 
arbitrary  assumption  that  the  latter  could  not  mention 
dates.  Nor  is  there  any  significance  in  the  circumstance 
that  in  ver.  15  it  is  the  father,  whereas  in  ver.  11  it  is 
the  mother,  who  gives  name  to  the  child.  It  has  been 
alleged  that  the  former  is  characteristic  of  P,  the  latter 
of  J.  But  this  rule  does  not  hold.  J  makes  Seth  (iv. 
26),  Judah  (xxxviii.  3),  and  Moses  (Ex.  ii.  22),  name  their 
children.  And  of  so  little  account  is  it  to  which  parent 
this  act  is  referred,  that  in  iv.  25,  26,  J,  they  alternate 
in  successive  verses,  and  in  xxxv.  18,  E,  both  occur  in 
the  same  verse  and  in  respect  to  the  same  child,  while  in 
XXV.  25,  26  ;  xxix.  34 ;  xxxviii.  29,  30  (all  J),  the  naming 
is  ascribed  to  neither,  but  spoken  of  indefinitely. 

The  closing  verses  are,  moreover,  essential  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  chapter.  If  they  be  sundered  from  it  and 
given  to  P,  the  result  will  be  that  while  J  records  Sarai's 
anxiety  to  have  children  by  her  maid,  Abram's  assent  to 
her  wishes,  Hagar's  pregnancy,  and  the  angel's  promise 
of  a  son,  whom  he  names  and  characterizes,  yet  the  point 
of  the  whole  narrative  is  never  reached.  J  makes  no 
mention  of  the  birth  of  Hagar's  child.  So  that  his  story, 
as  the  critics  furnish  it  to  us,  has  neither  beginning  nor 
end.  We  are  left  to  presume  that  it  once  had  these 
missing  parts,  corresponding  to  what  the  critics  have 
cut  away,  but  that  R  removed  them  to  make  room  for 
statements  to  the  same  efifect  from  P.     But  this  pre- 


212  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   TERAH 

sumption  is  only  an  inference  from  the  hypothesis,  and 
cannot  consequently  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  hy- 
pothesis, which,  if  it  is  to  stand,  must  rest  on  other 
ground  than  conjecture.  The  natural  inference  from  the 
facts,  as  they  lie  before  us,  is  that  the  beginning  and  the 
ending,  which  we  possess  in  the  text,  are  the  proper 
complements  of  the  narrative,  in  which  they  are  found, 
and  are  component  and  inseparable  portions  of  it. 
There  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  proof  that  other  equivalents 
ever  existed,  for  which  those  now  existing  were  substi- 
tuted. And  why  R  should  have  made  such  a  substi- 
tution, as  the  critics  allege,  does  not  appear,  especially 
as  at  other  times  he  is  represented  to  be  so  careful  to 
preserve  every  scrap  from  his  sources,  as  to  insert  what  is 
deemed  superfluous,  interrupts  the  connection  and  adds 
nothing  to  what  had  been  said  before. 

Wellhausen,  followed  by  Kautzsch,  regards  vs.  8-10, 
and  Kuenen  and  Kittel,  vs.  9,  10,  as  an  insertion  by  R. 
If  these  verses  were  ejected  a  seeming  conflict  can  be 
created  with  P  (vs.  15,  16 ;  xvii.  23  sqq.)  and  E  (xxi. 
9  sqq.),  and  it  can  be  made  to  appear  as  though  Ishmael 
was  born  in  the  desert  and  not  in  Abram's  house.  Well- 
hausen urges  the  triple  address  of  the  angel  to  Hagar  in 
proof  of  the  composite  character  of  the  passage  ;  but 
even  on  his  view  of  the  matter  R  introduces  the  angel  as 
speaking  to  her  twice  with  nothing  intervening.  The 
formula  of  address  is  repeated  thrice  in  order  to  mark 
the  distinctness  of  the  three  communications  which  he 
makes  to  her.  Dillmann  very  appropriately  cites  as  par- 
allels xvii.  3,  9,  15 ;  xxxv.  10,  11 ;  and  he  argues  that  it 
would  be  a  strange  hearing  of  her  affliction  if  the  angel 
had  left  her  helpless  in  the  wilderness ;  also  that  the 
verses  assigned  to  R  are  identical  in  style  and  diction 
with  the  context  in  which  they  stand.  Besides  the 
promise  of  numberless  offspring,  ver.  10  is  linked  with 


BIRTH   OF   ISHMAEL   (CH.    XVI.)  213 

XV.  5,  of  which  it  is  a  partial  fulfilment.  And  the  allega- 
tion that  J  differed  from  E  and  P  as  to  the  place  of 
Ishmael's  birth  would  be  improbable  in  itself,  even  on 
the  divisive  hypothesis,  unless  sustained  by  positive 
statements,  which  are  not  pretended  in  the  present  in- 
stance. It  is,  moreover,  expressly  contradicted  by  xxv. 
6  J  (Dillmann,  1st  and  2d),  though  referred  to  R  on 
frivolous  grounds  in  Dillmann  3d  ;  if  Abram  sent  Ish- 
mael  away,  his  mother  did  not  finally  leave  Abram's 
house  before  Ishmael's  birth. 

The  flight  of  Hagar  in  this  chapter  has  been  said  to 
be  only  a  variant  of  her  dismissal  (ch.  xxi.),  and  both  but 
legends  based  on  the  signification  of  her  name  (l^n  per- 
haps ^=  flight ;  cf.  hegira),  which  are  altogether  unfounded 
assumptions. 

MAKES   OF   P 

The  following  are  noted  by  Dillmann  as  marks  of  P  : 
1.  Exact  statements  of  time,  viz. :  Abram  ten  years  in 
Canaan  (ver.  3)  ;  eighty-six  years  old  (ver.  16).     But — 

a.  Such  statements  are  not  confined  to  P,  as  the  crit- 
ics themselves  divide  the  documents.  Thus  J,  periods 
of  seven  and  forty  days  in  the  flood  (vii.  4,  10,  12  ; 
viii.  6,  10,  12)  ;  four  hundred  years'  affliction  (xv.  13 ; 
Del.,  Kit.) ;  forty  years  in  the  wilderness  (Num.  xiv.  33, 
xxxii.  13).  E,  twelve  years'  service,  thirteenth  year  rebel- 
lion, fourteenth  year  invasion  (xiv.  4,  5,  Dill.)  ;  Jacob 
serving  twice  seven  years  (xxix.  20,  30) ;  twenty  years  of 
service,  fourteen  and  six  (xxxi.  38,  41) ;  Joseph  seven- 
teen years  old  (xxxvii.  2) ;  at  the  end  of  two  years  (xli.  1) 
the  same  phrase  as  xvi.  3 ;  seven  years  of  plenty, 
seven  of  famine  (xli.  29,  30,  47,  48,  53,  54)  ;  two  years 
and  five  (xiv.  6,  11) ;  Joseph,  one  hundred  and  ten  years 
old  (1.  22,  26)  ;  Caleb  forty  years  old  at  sending  of  spies, 


214  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

eighty -five  years  old  forty-five  years  later  (Josh.  xiv.  7, 
10);  Joshua  one  hundred  and  ten  years  old  (xxiv.  29). 

h.  This  repeated  mention  of  ages  and  of  definite 
periods  of  time  in  passages  attributed  to  JE  shows  that 
these  cannot  be  made  a  criterion  of  P ;  and  that  they 
afford  no  justification  for  severing  verses  in  which  they 
occur  from  their  proper  connection  on  the  plea  that  they 
are  thereby  proved  to  be  insertions  from  P.  Such  pas- 
sages as  xii.  4  ;  xvi.  3,  16  ;  xxv.  20  ;  xli.  46  ;  xhdi.  28,  must 
accordingly  be  held  to  belong  to  the  context  in  which 
they  are  found,  and  from  which  they  are  sundered  by 
the  arbitrary  test  which  has  now  been  shown  to  be  in- 
valid. It  is  contended  that  these  verses  form  part  of  a 
chronological  scheme  traceable  throughout  the  Penta- 
teuch, all  the  parts  of  which  must  of  necessity  be  as- 
signed to  the  same  writer.  This  is  readily  admitted ; 
but  the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  it  is  the  reverse  of 
that  deduced  by  the  critics.  It  is  not  that  these  pas- 
sages are  to  be  rent  from  the  context  to  which  they 
naturally  and  properly  belong,  and  attributed  to  P  ;  but 
that  the  sections  in  which  they  are  found  have  a  common 
author  with  all  those  other  sections  in  which  the  same 
scheme  appears.  And  as  this  scheme  runs  through  P,  J, 
and  E  sections  alike,  it  binds  all  indissolubly  together  as 
the  product  of  one  mind. 

2.  npb  took,  3.  n©^  dwelt,  and  4.  1:^33  -jr-iiji  land  of 
Canaan  (ver.  3)  are  not  peculiar  to  P,  as  was  shown  under 
ch.  xii.  5,  Nos.  1  and  4 ;  ch.  xiii.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  3. 

5.  ntSi?  loife,  applied  to  a  concubine,  is  adduced  by 
Dillmann  as  indicative  of  P,  with  a  reference  in  his  1st 
edition  to  xxv.  1,  in  which  Keturah  is  so  called,  and 
which  is  there  referred  to  P,  but  in  both  his  subsequent 
editions  to  E.  In  xxx.  4a,  9b,  the  same  term  is  applied  to 
Bilhali  and  Zilpah  ;  Dillmann  says  that  these  clauses 
"  could  possibly  have  been  originally  derived "  from  P. 


BIRTH    OF    ISHMAEL    (CH.  XVI.)  215 

But  if  SO  they  are  entirely  isolated  in  a  JE  context.  On 
such  a  showing  the  proof  that  this  is  characteristic  of  P 
is  rather  meagre. 

It  will  he  observed  that  of  the  w^ords  said  to  be  indic- 
ative of  P  in  the  scraps  attributed  to  him  in  ch.  xii.-xvi. 
not  one  occurs  in  any  preceding  P  section,  and  but  one 
occurs  exclusively  in  P,  viz.,  "  cities  of  the  plain,"  which  is 
found  in  but  two  places  and  each  time  in  a  verse  rent 
from  its  proper  connection. 

MARKS    OF   J 

The  following  are  said  to  be  indications  of  J  : 

1.  The  angel  (ver.  7  sqq.). 

There  are  two  reasons  Avhy  "  angel "  does  not  occur  in 
P.  a.  This  is  used  as  a  criterion  in  determining  the  doc- 
uments. The  presence  of  this  word  in  an  Elohim  -pa,s- 
sage  is  of  itself  held  to  indicate  that  it  belongs  not  to  P 
but  to  E.  b.  The  bulk  of  the  history  is  divided  between 
J  and  E,  and  only  such  a  residuum  assigned  to  P  as 
affords  no  occasion  for  an  angel  to  appear. 

2.  The  notion  in  ver.  1.3  that  it  was  dangerous  to  see 
God.     But— 

a.  This  is  based  on  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the 
verse.  Hagar  does  not  speak  of  her  seeing  God,  but  of 
his  seeing  her ;  not  of  her  continuing  to  live  after  this 
divine  vision,  but  of  the  ever-living  One  who  had  watched 
over  her  in  her  distress.  It  stands  in  no  relation,  there- 
fore, to  the  truth  taught  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  20,  "  No  man  shall 
see  me  and  live." 

b.  Even  if  this  verse  had  the  meaning  attributed  to  it, 
the  absence  of  this  idea  from  sections  ascribed  to  P  is 
as  readily  explained  as  its  absence  from  other  J  sections 
in  which  God  appears  to  men  or  speaks  with  them  with- 
out allusion  being  made  to  danger  thus  incuiTed. 


216  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

3.  The  unfavorable  representation  of  Hagar  and  Isli- 
mael.  That  this  is  found  in  J  and  not  in  P  is  simply  the 
result  of  the  partition.  Nothing  is  conceded  to  P  but 
the  bare  statement  of  Hagar's  union  with  Abram  and 
Ishmael's  birth.  Everything  indicative  of  character  is 
assigned  to  J  or  E.  There  is  no  variant  representation 
in  P.  Abram's  affection  for  Ishmael  (xvii.  18  P)  agrees 
with  xxi.  HE. 

4.  The  etymologies  in  vs.  11,  13,  14. 

But  the  like  are  found  in  P  xvii.  5,  17,  19,  20. 

5.  The  difference  between  ver.  11  and  15  in  respect  to 
the  person  naming  the  child. 

It  has  already  been  shown  (p.  211)  that  this  affords  no 
criterion  for  distinguishing  different  documents. 

6.  nini  Jehovah  ;  already  explained,  see  page  151. 

7.  sSTiDn  behold  noiv  (ver.  2)  ;  see  ch.  xii.  10-20,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  4.' 

8.  bipb  yaiD  hearkened  to  the  voice  (ver.  2),  occurs  in 
but  two  j)assages  besides  in  J  (Gen.  iii.  17  ;  Ex.  iv.  8,  9). 
It  is  found  likewise  in  E  (Ex.  iii.  18  ;  xv.  26 ;  xviii.  24). 
Commonly  this  verb  has  a  different  construction  in  J,  as 
it  has  in  P. 

9.  nS3?  restrained  (ver.  2),  occurs  but  once  besides  in 
the  Pentateuch  in  a  similar  connection  (xx.  18),  which 
the  critics  refer  to  R.  The  word  is  found  three  times  in 
P  (Num.  xvii.  13,  15,  E.  V.,  xvi.  48,  50 ;  xxv.  8),  but, 
nowhere  else  in  J. 

10.  nsib?  nsnn  /  will  greatly  multiply  (ver.  10),  and 
but  twice  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  (iii.  16  J,  and  xxii. 
17  El,  who  according  to  Dillmaun  has  made  a  free  addi- 
tion of  his  own).  In  Ex.  xxxii.  13  J,  ns^i?  is  without  the 
infinitive,  though  based  upon  Gen.  xxii.  16,  17.  How  J 
could  quote  R,  who  by  the  hypothesis  was  subsequent  to 
his  time,  it  is  not  easy  to  say.  But  if  J  uses  this  com- 
bination  in  two  places,  and  failed  to  employ  it  when 


COVEIS'ANT   SEALED    BY   ABRAHAM    (CH.  XVII.)      217 

there  was  such  an  obvious  reason  for  his  doing  so,  what 
is  there  surprising  in  its  absence  from  P,  who,  moreover, 
does  use  the  infinitive  absolute  Avith  the  finite  verb  in 
other  cases  ?  e.cj.  Ex.  xxxi.  14, 15  ;  Lev.  vii.  24  ;  x.  18  ;  xx. 
2,  27 ;  xxiv.  16,  17  ;  xxvii.  29  ;  Num.  xv.  35  ;  xxvi.  65 ; 
XXXV.  16-18,  21,  31. 

11.  i'lTS  "ISD^  i?b  shall  not  he  numbered  for  multitude 
(ver.  10).  This  phrase  occurs  but  once  besides  in  the 
Hexateuch  (xxxii.  13,  E.  V.,  12). 

12.  *ib^i5  it  may  he  (ver.  2),  besides  in  J  (xviii.  24,  28, 
29,  32 ;  xxiv.  5,  39 ;  Ex.  xxxii.  30 ;  Num.  xxii.  33  ;  Josh, 
ix.  7) ;  in  E  (Gen.  xxvii.  12 ;  xxxii.  21,  E.  V.  ver.  20 ; 
Num.  xxii.  6,  11 ;  xxiii.  27  ;  Josh.  xiv.  12).  It  would  not 
be  surprising  if  this  word  did  not  chance  to  occur  in  the 
very  limited  amount  of  narrative  accorded  to  P ;  still  it 
is  found  in  Josh.  xxii.  24,  which  Hollenberg  and  Well- 
hausen  refer  to  that  document. 


COVENANT  SEALED  BY  ABRAHAM   (CH.  XVII.) 

This  chapter  cannot  be  sundered  from  what  precedes 
and  follows  as  an  extract  from  an  entirely  independent 
document,  as  is  done  by  the  critics,  who  assign  it  to  P. 
It  is  most  intimately  related  to  the  whole  narrative  of 
which  it  is  a  part.  Its  explicit  allusion  to  antecedent 
events  obliges  the  critics  to  link  it  with  statements  of 
their  occurrence,  and  thus  by  means  of  scattered  and 
disjointed  sentences  to  make  out  for  P  a  show  of  continu- 
ity. With  how  little  reason  and  success  this  is  done,  we 
have  already  seen.  But  even  if  the  analysis  Avhich  they 
propose  were  better  supported,  it  does  not  meet  the  case. 
It  is  not  sufficient  that  there  should  be  a  bald  mention 
of  Abram's  arrival  in  Canaan  and  of  the  birth  of  Ishmael. 
The  significance  of  these  facts  in  the  life  of  Abram,  and 
the  entire  course  of  training  to  which  he  had  been  sub- 


218  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

jected,  as  this  is  set  forth  in  the  whole  antecedent  nar- 
rative, are  necessary  preliminaries  to  this  chapter.  Its 
form  cannot  be  accounted  for  nor  its  contents  be  under- 
stood without  it. 

The  one  leading  idea  in  the  life  of  Abram  is  the  trial 
of  his  faith,  that  it  might  be  perfected  and  exhibited, 
and  that  he  might  become  the  father  of  the  faithful. 
Jehovah  bade  him  leave  his  country  and  his  father's 
house,  promising  to  give  him  possession  of  a  laud  and  to 
make  of  him  a  great  nation ;  and  this  though  the  land 
was  already  occupied  by  Canaanites  and  his  wife  was 
childless.  His  faith  was  soon  tried  by  a  grievous  famine 
which  obliged  him  to  leave  the  laud  and  go  down  to 
Egypt,  where  a  new  trial  awaited  him  in  the  peril  of  los- 
ing Sarai.  She  was  rescued  by  divine  interference  and 
he  was  restored  to  Canaan  enriched,  but  the  promised 
seed  was  not  born.  In  the  long  waiting  he  began  to  ap- 
prehend that  his  steward,  Eliezer,  would  be  his  heir. 
But  the  promise  was  made  more  definite  that  he  should 
have  a  child  of  his  own  body,  not  merely  a  son  by  adop- 
tion, and  that  his  offspring  should  be  as  numerous  as  the 
stars.  And  to  confirm  his  faith  in  his  future  possession 
of  the  land,  Jehovah  entered  into  a  formal  covenant  with 
him,  sealing  the  engagement  by  a  visible  symbol  of  the 
divine  presence.  Ten  weary  years  had  worn  away,  and 
still  Sarai  had  no  child.  At  her  suggestion  he  took 
Hagar,  thinking  thus  to  obtain  the  promised  son.  Ish- 
mael  was  bom  and  had  reached  his  thirteenth  year  when 
the  promise  was  made  more  definite  still,  and  the  an- 
nouncement Avas  given  that  his  long-deferred  hope  was 
now  to  be  fulfilled.  Not  his  handmaid  but  his  wife,  not 
Hagar  but  Sarai,  should  be  the  mother  of  the  promised 
seed.  The  covenant,  which  had  already  been  ratified  on 
one  side,  must  now  be  ratified  on  the  other.  Abraham 
is  required  to  signify  his  faith  in  the  divine  announce- 


COVENANT   SEALED   BY   ABRAHAM   (CH.  XVII.)      219 

ment,  and  to  bind  himself  and  his  household  in  covenant 
with  God  by  the  seal  of  circumcision,  and  this  in  antici- 
pation of  Isaac's  birth.  This  final  ratification  of  the 
covenant  is  followed  by  Jehovah's  condescending  to  the 
usages  of  men,  and  celebrating  the  completion  of  this 
transaction  by  coming  in  human  form  to  feast  with 
Abraham  at  the  door  of  his  tent,  where  the  promise  is 
repeated  in  the  hearing  of  Sarah.  Jehovah  also  makes 
a  confidential  communication  of  his  purpose  to  Abraham, 
and  admits  him  on  the  footing  of  this  newly  confirmed 
friendship  to  the  intimacy  of  persistent  and  prevalent 
intercession. 

If  ever  a  narrative  bore  in  itself  the  evidence  of  invio- 
lable unity,  in  which  every  part  fits  precisely  in  its  place 
in  the  plan  of  the  whole,  and  is  indissolubly  linked  with 
every  other,  all  breathing  one  spirit,  contributing  to  one 
end,  working  out  one  common  design,  to  which  each  and 
every  item  is  indispensable,  and  defying  all  attempts  to 
rend  it  asunder,  this  is  the  case  with  the  life  of  Abraham 
as  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  Though  it  is  told 
with  a  charming  simplicity  and  ajjparent  artlessness, 
the  divine  purpose  rules  in  the  whole,  and  rivets  all 
together  with  hooks  of  steel  which  no  critical  art  can 
sever. 

We  are  asked  to  believe  that  all  this  close  correspond- 
ence and  evident  adjustment  of  the  several  parts  is  but 
the  result  of  a  lucky  accident.  Two,  or  rather  three, 
documents,  written  quite  independently  of  each  other, 
with  entirely  distinct  aims  and  frequently  at  variance  in 
their  details,  have  happened  to  be  so  constructed  that 
extracts  taken  from  them  could  be  dovetailed  together 
and  yield  all  the  evidence  of  a  consistently  constructed, 
regularly  developing  scheme,  which  reaches  its  most 
pathetic  climax  when  the  faithful  patriarch  proves  his 
obedience  in  the  last  and  sharpest  trial  of  all  by  taking 


220  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

the  knife  to  slay  his  son,  and  the  approving  voice  from 
heaven  stays  his  hand,  and  confirms  the  promises  previ- 
ously given  by  the  unheard-of  solemnity  of  the  oath  of 
Jehovah  swearing  by  himself. 

Is  it  a  supposable  thing  that  ch.  xvii.  has  been  ex- 
tracted from  a  document,  which,  as  the  critics  tell  us, 
knows  nothing  of  any  previous  divine  communication 
made  to  Abraham?  which,  on  the  contrary,  represents 
him  as  having  migrated  to  Canaan  of  his  own  motion, 
and  from  no  divine  impulse,  no  promises  having  been 
made  to  him,  and  no  measures  taken  to  discipline  his 
faith  ?  So  viewed  it  no  longer  has  the  emphasis  of  being 
preceded  by  a  series  of  promises  of  growing  definiteness 
and  clearness,  which  gradually  lead  up  to  it,  but  is  abso- 
lutely not  only  the  first,  but  the  only  revelation  which 
God  makes  to  Abraham  his  whole  life  long.  The  chap- 
ter is  then  an  enigma,  and  its  most  significant  features 
lose  their  point. 

Why  is  it  stated  (ver.  1)  that  Abram  was  ninety-nine 
years  old  ?  In  itself  that  is  an  altogether  unimportant 
detail.  And  so  are  the  facts  which  P  is  supposed  to 
have  registered  (xii.  5),  that  Abram  was  seventy-five  years 
old  when  he  departed  out  of  Haran,  and  (xvi.  16)  that 
he  was  eighty-six  years  old  when  Ishmael  was  born, 
provided  all  the  intervening  years  were,  as  the  critics 
suppose  them  to  have  been  in  this  document,  absolutely 
blank,  with  no  promise  from  God,  no  expectancy,  no 
event  of  any  kind — ^mere  empty  years  devoid  of  all  signif- 
icance. But  if  these  have  been  years  of  anxious  waiting 
for  the  fulfilment  of  a  promise  yet  unaccomj)lished,  of 
hope  long  deferred  yet  not  abandoned,  and  the  affair  of 
Hagar  was  the  rash  expedient  of  despondency  from  long 
delay,  then  we  see  the  significance  of  these  long  terms  of 
years.  They  are  no  longer  barren,  but  play  an  impor- 
tant part  in  the  discipline  of  Abram,  and  the  develop- 


COVENANT   SEALED   BY   ABRAHAM    (CH.  XVII.)      221 

ment  of  his  character.  They  are  full  of  meaning  in  the 
history  of  his  life,  which  would  not  stand  out  before  us 
in  the  light  that  it  does  if  they  had  not  been  recorded. 

And  why  does  Jehovah  reveal  himself  (ver.  1)  as  God 
Almighty  ?  The  critics  rob  this  of  all  its  significance  by 
making  it  merely  the  customary  patriarchal  denomina- 
tion of  the  Most  High.  But  why  does  this  name  ap^jear 
here  for  the  first  time  ?  And  why  in  the  subsequent  em- 
ployment of  it  in  Genesis  is  there  an  almost  invariable 
reference  to  this  occasion  and  to  the  promises  here 
made  ?  Why  this  appeal  to  the  divine  omnipotence,  en- 
hancing the  sense  of  the  magnitude  of  the  promise,  and 
of  the  might  involved  in  bringing  it  to  pass  ?  Consid- 
ered as  the  first  utterance  of  the  promise  to  Abram,  the 
simple  word  of  the  Most  High  should  be  suflicient  to 
awaken  faith  in  a  believing  soul,  as  in  xii.  1-4.  And  it 
would  seem  superfluous  to  precede  it  by  an  aflirmatiou 
of  his  almighty  power.  But  if  the  promise  had  been 
made  long  years  before,  and  repeated  from  time  to  time, 
while  yet  no  sign  of  its  accomplishment  appeared,  and 
every  natural  prospect  had  vanished,  and  there  was 
danger  that  faith  so  long  vainly  expectant  might  weaken 
or  utterly  die,  unless  attention  was  explicitly  directed  to 
the  limitless  strength  of  him  by  whom  the  promise  was 
given,  then  there  was  a  gracious  and  most  important  end 
to  be  answered  by  this  form  of  the  divine  communica- 
tion, and  we  can  see  why  Jehovah's  first  word  to  Abram 
on  this  occasion  should  be,  "  I  am  God  Almighty." 

And  why  is  the  divine  name  "  Elohim,"  (God),  thence- 
forward used  throughout  the  chapter?  The  critics  strip 
this  of  all  its  meaning  by  referring  it  to  the  habit  of  a 
writer,  who  with  unvarying  uniformity  made  use  of 
Elohim  as  far  as  Ex.  vi.  2,  while  chs.  xii.-xvi,,  with 
their  constant  use  of  "  Jehovah  "  (Lord),  are  traced  to  a 
diflferent  source.     But   this   brings  them   into   collision 


222  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

with  the  first  verse  of  ch.  xvii.,  where  it  is  said  that 
"  Jehovah  appeared  to  Abram."  Here  they  aver  that  R 
has  meddled  with  the  text,  and  substituted  "  Jehovah '' 
for  "  Elohim,"  which  upon  their  hypothesis  this  writer 
must  have  said.  And  this  in  spite  of  the  identity  of  the 
expression  with  xii.  7  and  xviii.  1,  which  vouch  for  its 
originality  in  xvii.  1 ;  and  that  there  is  no  variant  in 
MSS.  or  versions  to  afford  even  a  seeming  pretext  for 
this  purely  conjectural  change  of  text.  Meanwhile  the 
real  and  obvious  significance  of  the  name  Elohim  in  this 
connection  is  overlooked,  by  which  the  reader  is  re- 
minded throughout  the  interview  of  the  character  in 
which  the  Lord  here  announced  himself.  Nature  has 
failed  and  is  incompetent.  But  Jehovah  the  God  of 
Abram  is  also  Elohim,  the  omnipotent  Creator,  pledging 
that  which  transcends  the  powers  of  nature. 

And  why  is  there  such  iteration  and  reiteration  in  the 
promise  of  offspring  to  Abram  (vs.  2-8),  with  such  em- 
phatic expressions  and  such  enlargement  of  its  scope  be- 
yond any  preceding  instance  ?  I  "  will  multiply  thee 
exceedingly"  (ver.  2);  "thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many 
nations"  (ver.  4),  (not  merely  "  a  great  nation,"  as  xii.  2) ; 
and  this  emphasized  (ver.  5)  by  a  change  of  name  from 
Abram  to  Abraham,  "  for  a  father  of  many  nations  have 
I  made  thee.  And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful, 
and  I  will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come 
out  of  thee  "  (ver.  6)  ;  and  "  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  " 
is  thrice  repeated  (vs.  7,  8).  Here  the  critics  see  nothing 
but  verbose  diffuseness  of  the  writer  of  this  chapter,  who 
is  thus  supposed  to  be  distinguished  from  the  author  of 
ch.  xii.-xvi.  This  is  all  that  can  be  said,  on  the  critical 
hypothesis  that  this  is  the  first  and  only  occasion  on 
which  this  promise  is  made  to  Abram.  But  this  is  to 
miss  the  very  point  and  meaning  of  the  entire  passage. 
By  this  emphatic  reiteration  God  would  reassure  Abram 


COVENANT   SEALED   BY   ABRAHAM   (CH.  XVII.)      223 

after  the  vain  expectation  of  four  and  twenty  weary  years, 
lift  him  out  of  his  despondency,  and  give  him  to  under- 
stand that  God  had  by  no  means  forgotten  his  promise, 
but  it  should  be  most  certainly  fulfilled  and  on  a  most 
liberal  scale. 

And  why  is  this  subject  recuiTed  to  again  (vs.  15,  16, 
19,  21),  with  explicit  and  repeated  mention  of  Sarai  as 
the  mother  of  the  promised  child,  and  her  name,  too, 
changed  in  pledge  of  the  event  to  Sarah,  indicating  that 
she  Avas  to  be  the  mother  of  nations  and  that  kings 
should  be  of  her  ?  This  is  mere  superfluous  verbiage  on 
the  critical  hypothesis.  But  it  is  full  of  meaning,  if 
these  words  are  uttered  at  the  end  of  a  long  series  of  dis- 
appointments, by  which  Abram  had  been  tempted  to 
misconstrue  the  promise  which  had  been  made  him,  and 
to  think  first  of  Eliezer  as  his  heir,  and  then  of  Hagar  as 
the  mother  of  his  child.  Now  to  put  an  end  to  all  pos- 
sible misconception,  and  to  remove  all  doubts  arising 
from  Sarah's  advanced  age  and  long-continued  barren- 
ness, he  is  emphatically  assured  that  she  and  no  other 
shall  be  the  mother  of  the  promised  seed. 

And  why  in  the  midst  of  these  assurances  does  Abra- 
ham interject  the  petition  (ver.  18),  "  O  that  Ishmael 
might  live  before  thee  "  ?  The  critics  see  simply  an  ex- 
pression of  concern  for  Ishmael.  But  the  connection 
plainly  shows  that  after  the  fruitless  expectation  of  years 
Abraham  had  at  length  resigned  himself  to  the  belief 
that  Ishmael  was  the  only  child  that  he  could  ever  have, 
that  Sarah's  age  and  his  own  made  any  further  hope  im- 
possible, and  all  that  he  could  reasonably  anticij)ate  was 
that  his  race  should  be  perpetuated  in  Ishmael.  Hence 
the  emphasis  with  which  the  declaration  is  made,  that 
not  Ishmael,  but  Sarah's  son  Isaac,  to  be  born  at  this 
set  time  in  the  next  year,  was  the  child  contemplated  in 
the  promise. 


224  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

And  why  is  circumcision  introduced  just  here  as  the 
sign  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham  ?  The  critics  say 
that  this  covenant  is  here  spoken  of  as  a  new  thing,  with 
the  implication  that  the  writer  knew  nothing  of  the  pre- 
vious ratification  of  the  covenant  in  xv.  17,  18.  But  this 
is  a  wholly  unwarranted  inference.  The  covenant  was  in 
the  first  instance  ratified  by  the  Lord  as  one  of  the  con- 
tracting parties,  a  visible  symbol  of  the  divine  presence 
passing  between  the  pieces  of  the  slaughtered  animals. 
The  time  has  now  arrived  for  it  to  be  ratified  by  Abra- 
ham as  the  other  party  to  the  covenant.  And  it  is  highly 
significant  as  a  final  test  of  the  patriarch's  faith,  which 
had  been  so  sorely  tried  before,  that,  antecedent  to  the 
accomplishment  of  the  promise,  he  is  required  by  this  rite 
to  signify  his  confidence  in  that  for  which  he  had  so 
long  and  so  vainly  waited,  and  which  now  seemed  to  be 
counter  to  every  natural  expectation. 

The  entire  chapter  in  every  part  thus  presupposes  and 
is  shaped  by  the  antecedent  experience  of  Abraham  as 
recorded  in  chs.  xii.-xvi.  Severed  from  that  its  details 
have  no  significance,  and  merely  reflect  the  extraordi- 
nary difluseness  and  peculiar  verbal  preferences  of  the 
writer.  And  by  sheer  accident  his  fondness  for  numeri- 
cal statements,  his  employment  of  an  antiquated  title  for 
the  Supreme  Being,  his  habit  of  using  Eloliim,  his  verbose 
diffuseness,  and  his  disposition  to  dwell  upon  ritual  mat- 
ters yield  precisely  the  emphasis  and  the  form  needed  to 
crown  the  whole  series  of  promises  of  ever-growing  ful- 
ness and  precision,  recorded  by  another  writer,  of  whom 
P  knew  nothing,  and  whose  views  he  did  not  share  ;  they 
are  precisely  what  was  needed  in  a  last  reassuring  utter- 
ance to  one,  whom  hope  deferred  had  tempted  to  misin- 
terpret former  declarations,  or  to  grow  despondent  in  re- 
spect to  their  fulfilment.  It  requires  all  the  credulity  of 
an  antisupernatural  critic  to  accept  such  a  conclusion. 


COVENANT  SEALED  EY  ABRAHAM  (CII.  XVII.)   225 

And  fnrtlier,  ch.  xviii.  is  just  as  unintelligible  without 
ch,  xvii.,  as  the  latter  is  apart  from  the  chapters  that  pre- 
cede it.  The  transaction  there  recorded  is  without  a  par- 
allel in  Scripture.  It  cannot  be  dismissed  as  only  another 
instance  of  J's  extraordinary  anthropomorphisms,  or  put 
on  a  parallel  with  heathen  myths.  There  is  nothing  like 
it  elsewhere  in  J.  Its  remarkable  and  solitary  character 
implies  a  very  unusual  occasion.  The  occasion  was  in 
fact  absolutely  unique.  It  was  the  final  solemnization  of 
the  covenant  transacted  between  God  and  Abraham  as 
the  father  of  the  chosen  race,  and  which  had  now  been 
separately  ratified  by  each  of  the  parties.  It  was  the 
starting-point  of  that  scheme  of  grace  by  which  a  people 
was  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world  to  be  for  the 
time  the  depositary  of  God's  truth  and  ordinances  with 
a  view  to  the  ultimate  salvation  of  the  world.  The  near- 
est Scripture  parallel  is  that  in  which  Jehovah,  who  here 
covenanted  with  Abraham,  renewed  his  covenant  with  his 
descendants,  increased  to  a  nation,  at  Mount  Sinai  (Ex. 
xxiv.  7,  8),  which  was  followed  by  a  sacred  meal  in  which 
the  representatives  of  the  people  ate  and  drank  in  the 
immediate  presence  of  the  God  of  Israel  visibly  mani- 
fested before  them  (vs.  9-11).  So  here  Jehovah  in  hu- 
man form,  came  to  the  tent  of  Abraham,  and  ate  of  his 
food  in  token  of  the  friendly  intimacy  established,  as 
men  who  had  covenanted  were  in  the  habit  of  eating  to- 
gether in  recognition  of  their  oneness  and  their  amicable 
relations  (xxxi.  44,  46).  Put  this  unique  act  of  conde- 
scension in  connection  with  the  unique  relation  between 
God  and  man  just  consummated,  and  all  is  plain.  Sun- 
der it  with  the  critics  from  the  immediately  preceding 
transaction,  and  the  peculiarity  of  this  visit  to  Abra- 
ham has  no  meaning  and  is  without  an  object.  The 
section  next  preceding  in  J  is  the  story  of  Hagar, 
which  suggests  no  explanation  of  this  extraordinary 
15 


226  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

visit.^  This  is  another  instance  from  the  critics'  point  of 
view  of  the  combination  of  unrelated  writings  chancing 
to  impart  a  profound  significance  to  what  in  its  original 
position  was  unmeaning,  not  to  say  grotesque.  The  evi- 
dently inseparable  connection  of  this  whole  narrative  sup- 
plies an  argument  of  unity,  which  every  one  who  reads  it 
can  apiDreciate,  and  which  cannot  be  set  aside  by  any 
amount  of  critical  reasoning  from  microscopic  details. 


STYLE  OF  p 

It  is  claimed  by  the  critics  that  this  chapter  affords  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  difference  between  P  and  J  in 
the  treatment  of  their  respective  themes.  Thus  Dr. 
Harper'  says  that  P  is  "systematic.  Just  as  the  story 
of  creation  led  up  to  the  announcement  of  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  story  of  the  deluge  culminated  in  a  covenant 
with  Noah  and  the  law  of  bloodshed,  so  this  section 
brings  us  to  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and  the  institu- 
tion of  circumcision."  On  the  other  hand,  he  affirms^ 
that  J  has  "  no  particular  system  ;  while  the  covenant 
between  Yahweli  and  Abram  is  recorded,  it  is  neither 
the  climax  nor  the  all-important  fact  of  the  narrative. 
It  is  connected  with  no  institution ;  and  the  promise 
made  then  is  only  one  of  many  repeatedly  made  by 
Yahweh  in  his  familiar  intercourse  with  the  patriarchs." 

But  in  actual  fact  there  is  as  clear  and  abundant  evi- 

'  Nor  is  it  explained  by  the  covenant  in  ch.  xv.,  which  De  Wette 
(Beitrage,  ii.  p.  77)  affirms  to  be  another  form  of  the  "  myth  "  in  ch.  xvii. 
An  interval  of  years  is  presupposed  by  ch.  xvi. ,  which  must  necessarily 
follow  ch  XV.  and  precede  ch  xviii.  In  ch  xv.  God  gives  to  Abraham 
a  pledge  and  assurance  of  his  own  engagement  It  is  only  when,  as  the 
counterpart  to  this,  Abram,  in  ch.  xvii. ,  testifies  his  faith  in  God  and  adds 
his  seal  to  the  covenant  that  the  way  is  prepared  for  the  covenant 
meal  in  ch.  xviii. 

^  Hebraica,  v.,  4,  p.  244.  ='Ibid. .  p.  247, 


COVENANT   SEALED   BY    ABRAHAM   (CH.  XVII.)       227 

dence  of  "  system  "  in  that  portion  of  the  record  which 
is  attributed  to  J,  as  in  that  which  is  ascribed  to  P,  as 
tlie  most  cursory  examination  is  sufficient  to  show. 

The  call  of  Abraham  opens  the  third  period  of  the 
world's  history,  for  which,  as  it  appears  in  J,  the  way 
was  prepared,  and  the  necessity  demonstrated  (if  God's 
plan  of  grace  was  not  to  be  suffered  to  fail),  by  the  dis- 
astrous issue  of  both  the  preceding  periods.  Mankind 
descending  from  Adam  became  hopelessly  cormpt,  and 
was  swept  away  by  the  deluge,  from  which  righteous 
Noah  was  spared  to  be  the  head  of  a  new  race.  Imj)iety 
l^revailed  again  after  the  flood,  and  mankind  were  scat- 
tered over  the  face  of  the  earth.  But  God's  purpose  of 
mercy  was  not  abandoned.  He  selected  Abraham  to  be 
the  head  of  a  chosen  nation  within  which  true  religion 
might  be  perpetuated  for  the  ultimate  benefit  of  the 
world.  We  are  thus  brought  by  successive  steps  to  the 
base  on  which  the  entire  body  of  Old-Testament  institu- 
tions repose. 

The  antecedent  history  moves  on  toward  this  divine 
scheme  of  restriction  in  order  to  a  safe  and  final  diffusion 
in  various  distinct  though  related  lines.  Thus  the  suc- 
cessive stages  of  iniquity  depicted  by  J  converge  upon 
this  issue.  The  fall  of  our  first  parents ;  the  crime  of 
Cain ;  the  ungodliness  of  his  descendants — reaching  its 
acme  in  Lamech ;  the  degeneracy  of  the  pious  race  of 
Seth,  induced  by  intermarriage  with  the  race  of  Cain — 
the  sons  of  God  with  the  daughters  of  men — thus  point- 
ing a  lesson  of  which  Genesis  and  the  Pentateuch  are 
full,  viz.,  the  criminality  and  the  peril  of  the  chosen  seed 
allying  themselves  with  the  ungodly  around  them,  the 
need  and  the  duty  of  keeping  themselves  distinct.  And 
after  the  world  had  been  purged  by  the  flood ,  the  impious 
and  arrogant  combination  at  Babel,  frustrated  by  imme- 
diate divine  interference,  revealed  the  continuance  of  the 


228  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

old  leaven,  and  pointed  the  argument  for  some  new  expe- 
dient to  prevent  the  extinction  of  all  goodness. 

Add  to  this  the  gradual  unfolding  of  the  promise  in  J 
as  set  forth  in  each  of  these  great  j^eriods.  The  seed 
of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head.  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  Shem,  in  whose  tents  Japheth  shall  dwell. 
Abraham  and  his  seed  a  blessing  to  all  the  families  of 
the  earth. 

Also  the  regular  dropping  of  side  lines  in  J,  and  follow- 
ing the  main  line  so  as  to  converge  upon  Abraham,  thus 
indicating  the  distinctness  of  the  chosen  race  and  at  the 
same  time  their  relationship  to  the  whole  body  of  man- 
kind. Thus  the  line  of  descent  from  Cain  is  traced  and 
then  laid  aside  in  order  to  pursue  that  of  Seth,  which  the 
critics  tell  us  J  must  have  continued  down  to  Noah, 
though  only  fragments  remain  (iv.  25,  26  ;  v.  29).  Then 
the  sons  of  Noah  are  traced  and  dropped  in  J's  portion  of 
ch.  X.,  and  only  that  of  Shem  continued  in  the  direction 
of  Terali.  Then  in  Terah's  family  Lot's  descendants  are 
named  (xix.  37,  38),  and  Nahor's  (xxii.  20  sqq.),  so  in  like 
manner  the  child  of  Hagar,  and  the  children  of  Keturah, 
and  the  twin  brother  of  Jacob.  Tliese  are  successively 
set  aside,  and  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  left  in  sole 
possession  of  the  promise. 

Again,  the  promises  to  the  patriarchs  in  J  are  not  idle 
repetitions  of  the  same  identical  substance.  They  rise 
by  regular  gradations  in  respect  to  both  the  matters  to 
which  they  relate — ^the  promised  land  and  the  promised 
seed.  Jehovah  first  (xii.  1),  bade  Abram  go  to  a  land 
that  he  would  show  him.  After  he  reached  Canaan  it 
was  made  specific  (ver.  7),  "  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give 
this  land."  After  Lot  had  parted  from  him  the  terms 
are  made  universal ;  "  All  the  land  that  thou  seest,  north, 
south,  east,  and  west,  to  thee  will  I  give  it  and  to  thy 
seed  forever  "  (xiii,  14,  15).     Then  in  Jehovah's  covenant 


COVENANT   SEALED   BY   ABRAHA:\r    (CH,  XVII.)      229 

witli  Abram  (ch.  xv.),  this  promise  reaches  its  climax.  Its 
certainty  is  confirmed  by  the  divine  pledge  symbolically 
given.  The  time  of  the  gift  is  defined  (vs.  13-16),  and 
the  limits  of  the  territor}^  are  particularly  specified  (vs. 
18-21).  The  promise  has  become  a  formal  engagement 
of  the  utmost  solemnity ;  what  was  at  first  vague  and 
indefinite  has  attained  to  the  utmost  precision,  both  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  grant  and  the  time  of  its  bestowment. 

Nevertheless  it  is  true  that  the  covenant  transaction 
in  ch.  XV.  is  not  in  every  point  of  view  the  climax.  It 
rather  marks  an  important  stage  in  an  advancing  series 
traced  by  J.  Jehovah  spake  to  Abram  before  he  left  his 
father's  house  (xii.  1),  as  he  had  done  to  Noah  (vii.  1),  to 
Adam  (iii.  17),  and  to  Cain  (iv.  6).  But  when  i\.bram  en- 
tered Canaan  an  advance  was  made  upon  all  antecedent 
revelations.  Jehovah  appeared  to  him  (xii.  7).  A  step 
was  taken  beyond  this  in  ch.  xv.,  when  Jehovah  ratified 
a  covenant  with  Abram  by  a  visible  token  of  his  pres- 
ence. Then,  when  Abram  (ch.  xvii.),^  obedient  to  divine 
direction,  ratified  the  covenant  on  his  part  by  the  seal  of 
circumcision,  the  climax  was  reached  (ch.  xviii.)  in  the 
unequalled  condescension  of  a  manifestation  unique  in 
the  whole  Old  Testament.  Jehovah  in  human  form  par- 
takes of  a  covenant  meal  as  Abraham's  guest,  acquaints 
him  with  the  divine  counsels,  and  admits  him  to  the 
greatest  intimacy.  And  so  far  from  this  being  "con- 
nected with  no  institution,"  it  is  the  basis  of  the  whole 
future  constitution  of  Israel  as  the  people  of  God  (xviii. 
19),  and  the  foundation  of  its  national  counterpart  en- 
acted at  Sinai. 

The  successive  trials  of  Abraham's  faith  in  J  again 
form  a  graduated  series,  culminating  in  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac  ;  see  pp.  149, 150. 

And  the  promises  to  Abraham  respecting  his  offspring 

'  This  P  chapter  is  thus  a  necessary  link    in  this  J  series. 


230  THE   GENEKATIONS   OF   TERAH 

exhibit  a  corresponding  progression.  The  Lord  first  en- 
gaged (xii.  2)  to  make  of  him  a  great  nation,  and  (xiii.  16)  to 
make  his  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth.  After  years  of  vain 
expectation  Abraham  begins  to  suspect  that  he  shall  have 
no  offspring  of  his  own,  but  that  an  inmate  of  his  house 
shall  be  his  heir  ;  whereupon  the  Lord  assures  him  he 
shall  have  a  child  of  his  own  body  (xv.  3,  4).  But  Sarah 
was  barren  ;  so  at  her  instance  he  forms  an  intimacy  with 
Hagar,  and  hopes  that  Ishmael  may  prove  to  be  the  ex- 
pected seed  (xvi.  2).  He  is  then  informed  that  the  child 
of  the  bondwoman  is  not  the  promised  heir,  but  that 
Sarah  his  wife  shall  have  a  son  (xviii.  10).  After  Isaac  is 
born  he  is  tried  once  more  by  being  bidden  to  offer  him 
up  as  a  sacrifice  ;  and  when  his  faith  endured  this  final 
test  the  promise  of  a  numerous  and  victorious  seed  that 
shall  bless  the  world  was  renewed  in  ampler  terms  than 
before  and  is  confirmed  by  the  new  sanction  of  an  oath 
(xxii.  15-18).! 

With  all  this  evidence  of  a  developing  plan  and  of 
methodical  arrangement  it  surely  cannot  be  said  that  J 
has  "  no  particular  system." 

The  style  of  P  in  this  chapter  and  elsewhere  is  said  to 
be  distinguished  from  that  of  J  in  being  "  stereotyped,"  ^ 
and  marked  by  the  recurrence  of  the  same  unvarying 
phrases.  The  repetition  charged  is  largely  for  the  sake 
of  emphasis.  And  it  is  characteristic  of  Hebrew  writers 
generally  that  they  take  little  pains  to  vary  their  ex- 
pressions. If  the  same  thought  is  to  be  conveyed,  it  is 
mostly  done  in  the  same  or  like  terms.     It  is  not  difficult 

'  This  is  an  embarrassing  cliapter  for  the  critics  as  we  shall  see.  The 
great  majoi'ity  have  assumed  that  an  account  by  J  and  another  by  E  are 
here  blended.  The  present  tendency  is,  with  Dillman,  to  substitute  for 
J  free  additions  by  R  ;  in  which  case  an  independent  production  by  a 
different  writer,  with  an  appendix  by  another  still,  fits  as  admirably 
into  J's  scheme  as  though  it  had  been  prepared  with  special  reference 
to  it.  =  Ibid.,  p.  245. 


COVENANT   SEALED   BY    ABEAHAM    (CH.  XVII.)      231 

to  produce  an  equal  number  of  identical  phrases  in  J. 
Thus,  "lift  up  the  eyes"  (xiii.  10,  14);  "unto  thy  seed 
will  I  give  this  land"  (xii.  7-;  xv.  18) ;  "  there  he  builded 
an  altar  unto  Jehovah  "  (xii.  7,  8 ;  xiii.  18) ;  "  he  called  on 
the  name  of  Jehovah"  (xii.  8;  xiii.  4);  "the  Cauaanite 
then  in  the  land "  (xii.  6 ;  xiii.  7) ;  "  between  me  and 
thee  "  (xiii.  8  ;  xvi.  5). 

P  is  said  to  be  "  verbose  and  repetitious."  But  the 
repetitions  adduced  are  all  for  the  sake  of  emphasizing 
what  was  of  great  consequence  in  the  view  of  the  writer. 
So  "  the  land  of  Canaan,"  twice  (xii.  5b),  as  Abram's  ob- 
jective point,  and  to  mark  the  contrast  with  a  former  un- 
filled project  (xi.  31) ;  Ishmael  born  of  the  handmaid  not 
the  wife,  thrice  (xvi.  15,  16) ;  and  particularly  in  ch.  xvii. 
Like  repetitions  can  be  pointed  out  in  J,  e.g.,  "  Jehovah 
appeared  to  him,"  twice  (xii.  7) ;  "  Bethel  on  the  west "  (ver. 
8)  repeats  what  had  just  been  said ;  "  famine  in  the  land," 
twice  (ver.  10) ;  the  last  clause  of  ver.  14  adds  nothing  to 
that  which  immediately  precedes  ;  xiii.  3b,  4a  repeats  xii. 
8  with  great  minuteness  ;  "  to  thee  will  I  give  it,"  twice 
(xiii.  15,  17)  ;  "  and  the  angel  of  Jehovah  said,"  thrice 
(xvi.  9,  10,  11). 

MARKS   OF   P 

Dillmann  finds  the  following  criteria  of  P  in  this 
chapter. 

1.  Back  references  to  it  in  later  P  passages  (xxi.  2,  4  ; 
xxviii.  4;  xxxv.  12;  Ex.  ii.  24;  vi.  3,  4;  Lev.  xii.  3). 
But— 

a.  The  most  of  these  occur  iu  brief  paragraphs,  which 
are  ascribed  to  P  mainly  because  of  these  very  refer- 
ences, and  are  enclosed  in  sections  attributed  to  other 
documents. 

h.  Its  relation  to  other  P  passages  and  common  author- 
ship with  them  is  not  only  admitted  but  insisted  on  as 


232  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

involved  in  the  unity  of  the  entire  Pentateuch.  It  is 
onl}^  denied  that  these  are  by  a  different  author  from  the 
J  passages,  of  which  these  references  afford  no  proof. 

c.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  ch.  xvii.  is  insepar- 
ably connected  with  the  so-called  J  section,  ch.  xii.-xvi.; 
xviii.  14  J  refers  back  to  xvii.  21  (lyiiab  at  the  set  time) ; 
"Abraham"  (xviii.  6  J),  "  Sarah"  (ver.  9  J),  and  so  thence- 
forward regularly,  in  both  J  and  E  passages,  is  with  ex- 
plicit reference  to  the  change  of  name  (xvii.  5, 15  P).  The 
critics  seek  to  evade  this  plain  indication  of  unity  by 
gratuitously  assuming  that  R  has  systematically  altered 
the  text  throughout  to  conform  to  this  passage.^ 

2.  The  promise  of  nations  (vs.  4,  5,  16),  of  kings  (vs.  6, 
16),  and  princes  (ver.  20). 

a.  This  is  an  advance  upon  the  promise  (xii.  2)  to  make 
of  Abram  a  great  nation  ;  and  its  form  is  determined  by 
the  new  names  given  to  Abraham  (father  of  multitude) 
and  Sarah  (princess).  Other  promises  which  speak  of 
nations  (xxviii.  3 ;  xlviii.  4)  and  kings  (xxxv.  11)  descended 
from  the  patriarchs  borrow  their  expressions  from  this 
passage,  and  are  uttered  with  evident  allusion  to  it.  In 
like  manner  in  xlviii.  19  J,  the  future  superiority  of 
Ephraim  over  Manasseh  is  expressed  by  saying  that  the 
latter  should  become  a  people  and  be  great,  but  the 
former  should  become  nations,  what  is  here  said  of  Abra- 
ham being  applied  to  one  of  his  descendants. 

b.  The  promise  of  princes  to  spring  from  Ishmael  is 
only  found  in  this  one  place  (ver.  20),  and  it  answers 
precisely  to  its  fulfilment  (xxv.  16). 

3.  The  statements  of  time  (vs.  1,  17,  24,  25). 

These  are  arbitrarily  referred  to  P  by  rule  even  in  the 

'  Hnpfeld  (Quellen,  p.  198)  thinks  that  R  changed  the  names  to  con- 
form with  P,  not  in  the  following,  but  in  the  preceding  chapters,  the 
forms  "  Abram"  and  "  Sarai,"  which  were  peculiar  to  P,  being  intro- 
duced by  R  likewise  into  J  in  ch.  xi.  89-xvi. 


COVENANT   SEALED   BY   ABRAHAM    (CH,  XVII.)      233 

midst  of  sections  or  paragraphs  ascribed  to  other  docu- 
ments. Nevertheless  in  repeated  instances  the  critics 
find  themselves  compelled  to  admit  that  such  statements 
are  not  peculiar  to  P.  And  this  is  equivalent  to  an  ad- 
mission that  they  cannot  be  made  a  criterion  of  this 
document.     See  Chapter  xvi.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  1. 

4.  The  similarity  of  the  covenant  with  that  described 
in  ix.  9  sqq. 

The  resemblance  is  in  phrases  indicating  its  perpetuity, 
"  establish  my  covenant,"  "  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee ;  " 
and  in  appointing  a  token  of  the  covenant,  the  rainbow 
and  circumcision.  This  identity  of  terms  results  from 
the  like  nature  of  the  transactions. 

5.  The  great  redimdancy  of  the  style. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  what  the  critics  con- 
sider an  idle  multiplication  of  words  is  in  fact  such  a  re- 
peated asseveration  as  was  appropriate  in  the  situation 
and  demanded  by  it. 

6.  El  Shaddai  (ver.  1),  Elohim  (ver.  3  sqq.). 

The  significance  of  these  names  in  the  connection  has 
been  pointed  out.  The  divine  omnipotence  is  here 
pledged  to  accomplish  what  was  beyond  the  powers  of 
nature.  El  Shaddai  also  occurs  in  E  xliii.  14,  and 
Shaddai  in  J  xlix.  25  ;  Num.  xxiv.  4,  16. 

7.  n-jrib?  possession  (ver.  8).  This  is  the  only  word  used 
in  this' sense  in  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
except  ncniia  (Ex.  vi.  8,  P),  and  nbnD  inheritance,  which 
is  also  given  to  P  whenever  reference  is  made  to  the  oc- 
cupation of  Canaan,  with  the  single  exception  of  Ex.  xv. 
17  in  the  Song  of  Moses.  Another  synonym,  rw-r^^  pos- 
session, nowhere  occurs  in  the  books  above  named,  but  is 
limited  to  Deut.  ii.  and  iii.  and  three  verses  in  Joshua. 
If  now  n-Tns  is  the  proper  word  to  express  the  idea  in- 
tended, and  all  the  passages  from  Genesis  to  Numbers 
in  which  this  idea  is  found,  are  given  to  P,  never  to  J  or 


234  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

E,  how  can  it  be  otherwise  than  that  it  should  be  found 
exclusively  in  P  ?  And  yet  the  critics  are  not  unanimous 
in  making  it  altogether  peculiar  to  P ;  it  occurs  repeat- 
edly in  Lev.  xxv.  (not  P,  Well.) ;  also  in  Num.  xxxii.  5, 
22  (J,  Schrad.,  Kays.  ;  JE,  Well. ;  ver.  5  J,  Dill.) ;  Josh. 
xxi.  12  (not  P,  Dill);  xxii  4  (J,  Schrad.,  Kays. ;  D,  AVell., 
Dill.).  Dillmann  accounts  for  the  presence  of  this  word 
in  Josh.  xxii.  4  by  the  magisterial  assertion,  "Dpn-Trtii;  "J^nji 
a  phrase  of  P  has  been  substituted  by  Rd  or  some  later 
hand  for  DDniE'i;'  T'^&?-" 

8.  D'^i^'D  sojournings  (ver.  8).  The  phrase  "  land  of 
sojournings  "  occurs  four  times  besides  with  explicit  ref- 
erence to  this  passage  (xxviii.  4 ;  xxxvi.  7  ;  xxxvii.  1 ;  Ex. 
vi.  4) ;  and  "  sojournings  "  without  "  land  "  in  Gen.  xlvii.  9. 
All  these  passages  are  referred  to  P.  The  corresponding 
verb  T^a  is,  however,  used  of  the  sojournings  of  the  pa- 
triarchs alike  in  each  of  the  so-called  documents  (P,  xxxv. 
27  ;  Ex.  vi.  4 ;  J,  Gen.  xxi.  34 ;  xxvi.  3  ;  E,  xx.  1 ;  xxi.  23). 

9.  nip's  purchase  (vs.  12, 13,  23,  27).  The  expression 
"  purchase  of  silver,"  or  "  bought  with  money,"  occurs  but 
once  outside  of  this  chapter,  viz. :  Ex.  xii.  44.  The  word 
itself  also  occurs  Gen.  xxiii.  18 ;  Lev.  xxv.  16,  51 ;  xxvii. 
22.  These  are  all  referred  to  P.  But  as  this  was  the  only 
word  to  express  the  idea,  its  employment  was  a  matter  of 
necessity  and  not  peculiar  to  a  particular  document. 

10.  Tbin  beget  (ver.  20).  This  is  distinguished  from 
'ib'i  in  the  same  sense,  not  by  the  usage  of  distinct  doc- 
uments, but  the  employment  of  the  former  as  the  more 
dignified  and  formal  in  the  direct  line  of  descent  from 
Adam  to  Israel,  and  the  latter  in  the  divergent  line.  See 
on  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  20.  The  present  instance 
is  only  a  seeming  exception ;  the  use  of  ^ribin  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  Ishmael  is  here  contemplated  in  his  relation  to 
Abraham,  and  the  promise  to  Ishmael  here  made  is  in- 
cluded in  the  promise  to  Abraham. 


COVENANT  SEALED   BY   ABRAHAM    (CH.    XVII.)     235 

11.  Vi'^'tlj  prince  (ver.  20).  This  word  is  referred  by 
Dillmann  to  P,  except  in  Ex.  xxii.  27  (E.  V.,  28)  E.  This 
is  made  a  criterion  of  P,  and  verses  and  clauses  contain- 
ing it  are  persistently  attributed  to  this  document  even 
at  the  expense  of  dividing  sentences,  as  is  done  Gen. 
xxxiv.  2a  (but  Schrad.,  J ;  Well.,  not  P,  J  nor  E ;  Kuen.,  E), 
Num.  xvi.  2 ;  xxxii.  2b  (but  Well.,  JE,  Kuen.,  R)  ;  Josh, 
ix.  15  is  split  into  three  parts,  and  assigned  to  as  many 
different  sources. 

12.  iDr^a  stranger  (vs.  12,  27),  but  twice  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch  outside  of  this  chapter,  viz. :  Ex.  xii.  43  P ;  Lev. 
xxii.  25,  not  P  (Well.)  ;  nD2  elsewhere  in  the  Hexateuch 
only  in  J,  Deut.  xxxi.  16  ;  xxxii.  12  ;  or  E,  Gen.  xxxv.  2, 
4 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  20,  23. 

13.  023?  self-same  (vs.  23,  26).  See  Gen.  vi.-ix.,  Marks 
of  P,  No." 24. 

14.  nDT"b3  every  male  (vs.  10,  12,  23).  See  Gen.  vi.-ix., 
Marks  o7  P,'  No.  12. 

15.  T^yy]  H'lS  he  fruitful  and  multiply  (ver.  20).  See 
Gen.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  15. 

16.  n^ia  "jriD  and  D''pn  establish  or  ordain  a  covenant 
(vs.  2,  7,19,  21),  do..  No'.' 16. 

17.  Expressions  compounded  with  d^i'S  eternity^  per- 
petuity. 

Such  expressions  are  found  in  each  of  the  so-called  doc- 
uments, whenever  perpetuity  or  indefinite  duration  is  to  be 
affirmed  of  any  subject.  Thus,  "  everlasting  God  "  (Gen. 
xxi.  33  J)  ;  "  everlasting  hills  "  (Gen.  xlix.  26  J  ;  Deut. 
xxxiii.  15  E) ;  "  heap  for  ever  "  (Deut.  xiii.  16  D  ;  Josh, 
viii.  28  Ed) ;  "  servant  for  ever "  (Deut.  xv.  17  D)  ; 
"days  of  old"  (Deut.  xxxii.  7  J);  "everlasting  arms" 
(Deut.  xxxiii.  27  E).  Such  combinations  are  most  fre- 
quent in  the  ritual  law,  all  of  which  is  assigned  to  P ; 
legal  phrases  are  therefore  to  be  expected  in  this  doc- 
ument   and    in   no   other.      Thus,    "  statute   for   ever " 


236  THE  GENERATIONS   OF  TliRAH 

(obij?  nj^n)  twenty-one  times,  (obis'  ph)  eleven  times; 
"  everlasting  priesthood  "  twice  ;  "  perpetual  covenant  " 
(Ex.  xxxi.  16  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  8;  Num.  xviii.  19) ;  "  perpetual 
j^ossession  "  (Lev.  xxv.  34).  Exclusive  of  the  ritual  law 
the  only  expressions  of  the  kind  in  P  are  those  which 
declare  the  perpetuity  of  God's  covenant  Avith  Noah 
(Gen.  ix.  12,  16),  and  Abraham  (xvii.  7,  13,  19),  and 
of  the  possession  of  Canaan  (xvii.  8;  xlviii.  4).  There  is 
nothing  in  this  surely  to  indicate  diversity  of  authorship. 

18.  Thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee.  See  Gen.  vi.-ix., 
Marks  of  P,  No.  17. 

19.  ori'inb  throughout  their  generations  (vs.  7,  9,  12). 
This  phrase,  with  the  pronoun  "  their  "  or  "  your,"  is 
used  exclusively  in  ritual  connections  to  denote  the  per- 
petuity of  the  institutions  referred  to.  Since  ritual  mat- 
ters are  regularly  ascribed  to  P,  this  phrase  is  neces- 
sarily found  only  in  that  document. 

20.  y^^r\r]  irsin  nnnpsn  That  soul  shall  he  cut  off{\er. 
14),  a  technical  legal  phrase,  not  to  be  expected  except  in 
legal  sections. 

21.  i^DS  y'ySi  land  of  Canaan  (ver.  8).  See  ch.  xii., 
Marks  of  P,  No.  4. 

22.  Is5'a  I'S'Q  exceedingly  (vs.  2,  6,  20).  See  ch.  vi.-ix., 
Marks  of  P,  No.  27. 

VISIT  TO   ABRAHAM   AND   DESTRUCTION  OF   SODOM    (CH.   XVIII. 
1-XIX.   38). 

This  narrative  of  Jehovah's  visit  to  Abraham,  and  of 
the  subsequent  destruction  of  Sodom,  is  by  the  critics 
referred  to  J.  Wellhausen  and  Kueuen  regard  xviii.  17- 
19,  and  vs.  22b-33a,  as  late  additions  by  another  hand. 

The  intimate  relation  of  ch.  xviii.  to  the  preceding  has 
already  been  exhibited.  It  is  the  final  solemnity  con- 
nected  with   the  concluding  of   the  covenant  to  which 


VISIT  TO   ABRAHAM,   ETC.    (CH.   XVIII.    1-XIX.   38)   237 

Abraham  gave  his  adhesion  in  ch.  xvii.,  which  acceptance 
by  him  is  accordingly  here  presupposed.  The  reason  for 
the  change  in  the  divine  names  has  also  been  stated,  the 
thought  of  God's  Almighty  power  ruhng  in  ch.  xvii.,  as 
his  gracious  condescension  does  in  ch.  xviii.,  see  p.  152. 

The  form  of  expression  in  xviii.  1  further  shows  that 
it  connects  with  what  immediately  precedes ;  "  unto  him  " 
finds  its  explanation  in  "Abraham,"  who  is  distinctly 
mentioned  xvii,  26,  and  who  is  the  prominent  subject 
throughout  the  whole  of  ch.  xvii.  But  there  is  nothing 
with  which  to  link  it  in  xvi.  7-14,  the  paragraph  which 
it  immediately  follows  in  J,  as  the  text  is  partitioned  by 
the  critics. 

The  critics  allege  that  xviii.  9-15  is  a  different  account 
of  the  promise  of  Isaac's  birth  already  given  (xvii.  15-21). 
But  this  is  obviously  not  the  case.  The  latter  was  made 
to  Abraham,  the  former  was  for  the  benefit  of  Sarah. 
That  they  alike  receive  the  announcement  with  a  measure 
of  incredulity,  based  on  the  advanced  age  of  both ;  that 
each  laughs  at  what  to  the  natural  reason  seemed  so  pre- 
posterous, which  the  writer  notes  with  allusion  to  the 
meaning  of  the  name  of  Isaac ;  that  the  interval  before 
the  birth  is  stated  in  almost  identical  terms,  but  little 
time  having  elapsed  between  the  two  promises,  is  alto- 
gether natural  and  suggestive  of  one  writer  and  one  con- 
tinuous narrative,  not  of  two  separate  stories  relative  to 
the  same  event.  The  Lord  promises  to  return  to  Sarah 
(xviii.  14)  not  after  the  birth  of  her  child  in  a  visit  which 
J  is  imagined  to  have  recorded,  and  R  has  not  preserved, 
but  he  visited  her  in  giving  her  Isaac  (xxi.  1). 

Kuenen  reaches  his  conclusion  that  xviii.  17-19,  22b- 
33a,  are  inter[5olations  of  a  late  date  in  the  following 
manner :  ^  "  Ch.  xii.  3,  where  '  the  families  of  the  land ' 
are  mentioned,  is  certainly  more  primitive  than  xviii.  18, 

'  Hexateuch,  p.  346. 


238  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TEKAH 

wlaere  '  the  peoples  of  the  earth '  are  substituted.  The 
latter  formula  stands  (Gen.  xviii.  17-19),  iu  a  context 
that  sounds  almost  Deuteronomic,  and  may  therefore  be 
brought  down  with  high  probability  to  the  seventh  cen- 
tury (cf.  Jer.  iii.  17  ;  iv.  2 ;  xii.  15-17  ;  xxxiii.  9).  In  the 
immediate  neighborhood  of  these  verses  stands  the  peri- 
eope  (vs.  22b-33a),  the  theme  of  which,  viz.,  the  righteous- 
ness of  Yahwe  iu  connection  with  the  lot  of  individuals, 
appears  again  to  point  to  the  seventh  century,  in  which, 
at  all  events,  it  was  dealt  with  by  the  Deuteronomist  (vii. 
9, 10  ;  xxiv.  16) ;  Jeremiah  (xvii.  14-18 ;  xviii.  19-23 ;  xxxi. 
29,  30),  and  Habakkuk  (i.  12  sqq.).  While  the  passage 
testifies  to  continued  theological  reflection,  its  soteriology 
finds  an  echo  in  Gen,  xv.  5,  6,  which  is  parallel  not  with 
Isaiah  vii.  9b,  but  with  Hab.  ii.  4b." 

The  allegation  that  these  ideas  savor  of  a  later  age  is 
pure  assumption.  Gen.  xii.  3  speaks  not  of  "  the  families 
of  the  land "  of  Canaan,  but  of  "  all  the  families  of  the 
earth,"  which  is  precisely  identical  with  "  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  "  in  xviii.  18.  The  doctrine  of  a  world-wide 
redemption  is  rooted  in  that  of  the  unity  of  the  human 
race,  and  the  relationship  established  between  all  nations 
by  their  descent  from  a  common  stock  (ch.  x.),  and  in  the 
primal  promise  of  a  victory  by  the  seed  of  the  woman 
over  the  destroyer  (iii.  15).  It  is  a  simple  unfolding  of 
what  is  involved  in  these  earliest  disclosures,  when  the 
temporary  limitation  of  God's  special  blessing  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  descendants  is  in  the  very  first  announce- 
ment made  to  him  declared  to  be  in  order  to  pave  the 
way  for  a  blessing  to  all  the  families  of  mankind.  This 
was  not  a  doctrine  reserved  for  the  age  of  Jeremiah. 
Moreover,  as  Dillmann  suggests :  "  Men  had  reflected  on 
the  righteousness  and  mercy  of  God  before  Jeremiah,  e.g., 
Gen.  XX.  4,  and  on  the  possibility  of  intercession  for  the 
guilty,  e.g.,  xx.  7,  17 ;  Ex.  xxxii.  11  sqq. ;  besides,  God's 


Visit  to  Abraham,  etc.  (cii.  xviii.  i-xix.  28)  239 

disclosure  to  Abraliam  (xviii.  20,  21)  is  altogether  aimless 
and  disconnected  without  vs.  17-19  and  23  sqq."  And 
the  supreme  importance  of  faith  and  obedience  was  well 
understood  before  it  was  formulated  by  Habakkuk,  e.g., 
Ex.  iv.  5,  31 ;  xiv.  31 ;  Num.  xiv.  11. 

This  is  but  a  specimen  of  the  attempt  that  is  made  to 
impose  au  arbitrary  scheme  of  the  development  of  relig- 
ious thought  upon  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Such  a  scheme  is  devised  at  the  pleasure  of  the  critic.  It 
is  then  used  as  a  standard  for  the  determination  of  the 
age  of  books  or  of  paragraphs  and  sections,  which  are 
distributed  irrespective  of  their  true  position  according 
as  they  correspond  with  one  period  or  another  of  this 
imaginary  scheme. 

Wellhausen  tries  to  prove  the  existence  of  interpola- 
tions by  a  different  process.  He  says  that  i;x  (ver.  17), 
and  -ilTX  ]?'ab  rpyi"*  I  Jt'^ve  known  him  to  the  end  that 
(ver.  19),  are  suspicious,  and  vs.  17-19  are  allied  in  con- 
tents to  xiii.  11-17  and  xxii.  15-18,  which  he  likewise 
pronounces  spurious.  But  ■'355  occurs,  besides,  in  J  xxiv. 
45  ;  xxvii.  8,  32 ;  xxviii.  13  ;  xxxiii.  11 ;  xxxiv.  30 ;  xiv. 
4 ;  and  an  unusual  construction  cannot  for  that  sole  rea- 
son be  summarily  ejected  from  the  text,  unless  no  writer 
can  use  a  phrase  which  he  does  not  employ  more  than 
once.  The  resemblance  of  this  passage  to  others,  whose 
genuineness  there  is  no  good  reason  for  suspecting,  in- 
stead of  discrediting  it,  tends  rather  to  their  mutual  con- 
firmation. 

In  regard  to  vs.  22b-33a,  there  is  not  even  the  pretext 
of  a  diversity  of  diction  or  style.  It  is  claimed  that  ver. 
22a  connects  well  with  33b ;  "  the  men  went  toward 
Sodom,  .  .  .  and  Abraham  returned  unto  his  place." 
But  the  fact  that  the  omission  of  the  intervening  verses 
would  create  no  evident  break  in  the  connection  is  no 
XDroof   of   interpolation,    as    other    critics   here   confess. 


240  THE   GENEIIATIONS   OF   TERAH 

Abraham's  awe  (vs.  27,  30-32)  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  attentions  shown  to  his  divine  guest  (vs.  2  sqq.).  It 
is  true  that  the  men  include  Jehovah  (vs.  2,  16) ;  but 
this  is  not  the  case  (ver.  22)  where  he  is  expressly  dis- 
tinguished from  them.  The  genuineness  of  the  passage  is 
besides  vouched  for  by  vs.  20,  21,  which  are  designed  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  interview  that  follows  ;  by  the 
explicit  allusion,  xix.  27  to  xviii.  22b,  and  the  scene  that 
follows ;  by  the  number  "  two "  (xix.  1),  which  implies 
that  one  had  remained  behind  (xviii.  2)  ;  by  "  angels  " 
(xix.  1,  15),  indicating  that  they  were  Jehovah's  messen- 
gers (see  ver.  13),  not  Jehovah  himself ;  and  by  the  use 
of  the  singular  alternating  with  the  plural  (xviii.  3,  4,  9, 
10),  showing  that  one  of  the  three  was  the  superior,  was, 
in  fact,  Jehovah  (vs.  13,  17,  20,  22),  and  this  feature  does 
not  reappear  after  xviii.  22  until  xix.  17-22,  at  which 
point  it  is  thus  intimated  that  Jehovah  rejoins  them. 
The  assertion  that  J  never  uses  the  plural  "  angels  "  is 
disproved  by  this  very  passage. 

MARKS  or  J 

The  following  grounds  are  alleged  for  assigning  this 
section  to  J : 

1.  "  The  same  beauty  and  transparency  of  description, 
the  same  vividness  of  portraiture,  the  same  depth  and 
fulness  of  thought,  the  same  naive  and  popular  anthro- 
pomorphism as  in  ii.  4-iii.  24 ;  xi.  1-9,  shows  the  writer 
to  be  the  same." 

The  correspondence  in  style  and  character  is  freely 
admitted,  and  the  identity  of  authorship  affirmed.  Like 
qualities  are  to  be  expected  in  compositions  by  the  same 
author  when  the  subject  admits  of  similar  treatment. 
But  a  different  style  befits  majestic  scenes  such  as  the 
creation,  in  ch.  i.,  or  those  of  awful  grandeur,  as  the  flood 


VISIT  TO   ABRAHAM,    ETC.    (CII.   XVIII.    1-XIX.   38)  241 

(ch.  vi.-ix.),  or  the  monotonous  recital  of  a  genealogy,  as 
ch.  v.,  or  the  technical  enactments  of  ritual,  or  when  the 
omnipotence  of  God  is  to  be  emphasized  (ch.  xvii.) 
rather  than  his  condescension.  Unless  it  is  contended 
that  the  author  of  these  chapters  could  not  write  upon 
themes  of  a  different  description,  his  productions  may 
be  expected  to  exhibit  a  diversity  of  style  corresponding 
to  the  variety  of  matters  with  which  he  deals. 

2.  The  back  reference,  xviii.  18  to  xii.  2,  3. 

The  reference  is  obvious,  but  no  more  so  than  the  use 
of  "  Abraham "  and  "  Sarah "  throughout  ch.  xviii.  to 
xvii.  5,  15 ;  or  xviii.  14  to  xvii.  21  ;  or  xviii.  11,  12,  to 
xvii.  17  ;  or  the  transaction  in  ch.  xviii.  to  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  covenant  on  the  part  of  Abraham  in  ch.  xvii., 
which  it  presupposes. 

3.  Jehovah.     See  page  152. 

4.  ini?  my  Lord,  xviii.  3,  27,  30-32  ;  xix.  18. 

Apart  from  these  chapters  this  word  occurs  in  J,  Ex. 
iv.  10,  13 ;  xxxiv.  9 ;  Josh.  vii.  7,  8 ;  E,  Gen.  xx.  4  ;  Ex. 
XV.  17 ;  JE,  Gen.  xv.  2,  8  ;  disputed,  Ex.  v.  22  J  (Well.), 
E  (Dill.) ;  R,  Num.  xiv.  17;  D,  Deut.  iii.  24  ;  ix.  26.  All 
in  Hex. 

5.  I3'i3n  look,  xix.  17,  26.  Not  referred  to  J  in  any 
other  place  ;  JE,  Gen.  xv.  5  ;  E,  Ex.  iii.  6  ;  xxxiii.  8  ;  Num. 
xii.  8 ;  xxi.  9 ;  xxiii.  21.     All  in  Hex. 

6.  qp©  look  forth  xviii.  16  ;  xix.  28;  once  besides  in  J, 
xxvi.  8 ;  JE,  Ex.  xiv.  24  ;  doubtful.  Num.  xxi.  20  ;  R,  Num. 
xxiii.  28.     All  in  Hex. 

7.  TX^V^  cry^  xviii.  21 ;  xix.  13  ;  besides  in  J,  Ex.  xi.  6  ; 
xii.  30;'e,  Gen.  xxvii.  34;  Ex.  iii.  7,  9;  xxii.  23  (Well., 
R).     All  in  Hex. 

8.  tlbbn  /m-  he  if,  xviii.  25  ;  besides  in  J,  xliv.  7, 17  ;  E, 
Josh.  xxiv.  16  ;  R,  Josh.  xxii.  29.     All  in  Hex. 

9.  D?sn  this  time,  xviii.  32.  This  word  occurs  repeat- 
edly in  passages  assigned  to  J.  in  the  singular  denoting 

16 


642  THE   GENERATIONS    OE   TERAH 

this  time  or  this  once ;  in  the  dual  meaning  twice  ;  and 
in  the  plural  with  different  numerals,  e.g.,  viz.,  three  times, 
Ex.  xxxiv.  23,  24 ;  Num.  xxiv.  10 ;  seven  times.  Gen. 
xxxiii.  3;  Josh.  vi.  4,  15.  In  passages  assigned  to  P 
once,  twice,  and  three  times  do  not  chance  to  occur,  but 
only  seven  times,  Lev.  iv.  6,  17,  and  repeatedly ;  and  ten 
times,  Num.  xiv.  22  ;  the  very  same  word  being  employed 
as  in  J  passages.  If,  then,  this  word  is  to  be  classed  as  a 
criterion  of  J,  it  can  only  be  on  the  assumption  that  while 
P  knew  how  to  say  seven  times  and  ten  times,  he  did 
not  know  how  to  say  this  time  or  this  once. 

10.  ^Tr^tr\  behold  now,  xviii.  27,  31 ;  xix.  2,  8,  19,  20. 
See  ch.  xiC  10-20,  Marks  of  J,  No.  4. 

11.  n^nya  for  the  sake  of,  xviii.  26,  29,  31,  32.  See  ch. 
xii.  10-20,'  Marks  of  J,  No.  5. 

12.  nss  urge,  jjress,  xix.  3,  9 ;  but  once  besides  in  Hex. 
xxxiii.  11  J. 

13.  Dlt3  before,  xix.  4 ;  besides  in  J,  ii.  5  ;  xxiv.  15,  45 ; 
Ex.  ix.  30^  X.  7  ;  xii.  34 ;  Josh.  ii.  8 ;  JE  Josh.  iii.  1.  With 
the  prep,  a  it  occurs  in  J,  Gen.  xxxvii.  18  ;  xlv,  28 ;  Deut. 
xxxi.  21 ;  but  also  in  E,  Gen.  xxvii.  4,  33 ;  xii.  50 ;  Ex.  i. 
19 ;  and  in  P,  Lev.  xiv.  36. 

14.  "^wbab  not  to,  xix.  21 ;  besides  in  J,  iii.  11 ;  iv.  15  ; 
xxxviii. '9;^Ex.  viii.  18,  25  (E.  Y.,  vs.  22,29);  ix.  17; 
Lev.  xviii,  30 ;  xxvi.  15 ;  Num.  xxxii.  9 ;  but  also  E,  Ex. 
XX.  20 ;  Josh.  xxii.  25 ;  D,  Deut.  iv.  21  ;  viii.  11 ;  xvii. 
12,  20 ;  Josh,  xxiii.  6 ;  and  P,  Lev.  xx.  4  (so  Noldeke ; 
R,  Dill.),  Num.  ix.  7  (Dill,  worked  over,  and  this  word 
alleged  in  proof). 

15.  "ib^i?  peradventure,  xviii.  24,  28-32.  See  ch.  xvi., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  12. 

16.  tiiJ'^pb  to  meet,  xviii.  2 ;  xix.  1 ;  repeatedly  in  J,  E, 
and  D  ;  Num.  xxxi.  13,  according  to  Dillmann,  consists  of 
"  genuine  phrases  "  of  P,  with  the  sole  exception  of  this 
one  word. 


VISIT   TO   ABRAHAM,    ETC.    (CH.   XVIII.   1-XIX.   28)   243 

17.  n-T  ntib  ivherefore,  xviii.  13 ;  besides  in  J,  xxv.  22, 
32;  xxxii.  30  (E.  Y.,  ver.  29);  xxxiii.  15;  Num.  xi.  20; 
Josh.  vii.  10 ;  JE,  Num.  xiv.  41 ;  Ex.  v.  22  is  referred 
by  Dillmann  to  E,  and  by  Wellhausen  to  J.    All  in  Hex. 

18.  '}3-b:^  "^3  for  therefore,  xviii.  5  ;  xix.  8 ;  but  four  times 
besides  in  Hex.,  all  of  which  are  referred  to  J,  viz.,  xxxiii. 
10  ;  xxxviii.  26  ;  Num.  x.  31 ;  xiv.  43. 

19.  qs5  also,  xviii.  13,  23,  24 ;  but  once  besides  in  J, 
viz.,  iii.  1  ;  Dillmann  also  refers  to  this  document.  Lev. 
xxvi.,  in  which  this  word  occurs  several  times  (vs.  16,  24, 
28,  39-44),  but  in  this  he  differs  from  other  critics ;  it  is 
besides  found  in  JE,  Num.  xvi.  14  ;  E,  Deut.  xxxiii.  3,  20  ; 
and  D,  Deut.  ii.  11 ;  xv.  17 ;  xxxi.  27. 

20.  p"i  only,  xix.  8 ;  repeatedly  in  J,  E,  and  D.  See 
ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  7. 

21.  S5D  I  pray,  xviii.  3,  4,  21,  30,  32 ;  xix.  2,  7,  18,  20, 
etc.     See  ch.  xii.  10-20,  Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

22.  Forms  in  "jl.  These  occur  repeatedly  in  J,  E,  and 
D ;  but  emphatic  forms  suited  to  earnest  address  or 
vigorous  assertion  are  scarcely  to  be  expected  in  the  class 
of  passages  that  are  assigned  to  P.  Nevertheless  we  find 
y^'S^t}'^  (Josh.  xvii.  10  P)  in  a  simple  statement  of  tribal 
boundaries.  This  is  in  a  P  context,  and  the  verb  is 
reckoned  a  P  word. 

23.  bs?  for  n^S  these,  xix.  8,  25 ;  six  times  besides  in 
Hex.;  Ed,  xxvi.  3,  4;  D,  Deut.  iv.  42;  vii.  22  ;  xix.  11 ; 
also  in  Lev.  xviii.  27,  which  Dillmarfn  supposes  to  have 
been  extracted  from  J,  but  other  critics  refer  it  to  a  dif- 
ferent source. 

24.  Thy  servant  for  /,  xviii.  3,  5  ;  xix.  2,  19 ;  several 
times  in  J,  but  also  in  E,  xxxii.  21  (E.  V.,  ver.  20) ;  xxxiii. 
5  ;  and  D,  Deut.  iii.  24  ;  not  in  P  for  the  reason  that  no 
passages  are  assigned  to  this  document  in  which  this  con- 
struction would  be  possible. 

25.  ynisn  '^"'ia  bis  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  (xviii.  18). 


244  THE   GETSTERATIOlSrS   OF   TERAH 

This  expression  is  found  in  but  three  other  passages  in 
the  Hexateuch,  no  one  of  which  is  referred  to  J,  viz.,  in 
xxii.  18 ;  xxvi.  4  E ;  and  Deut.  xxviii.  1  D.  The  same 
idea  of  the  universality  of  the  blessing  through  the  patri- 
archs and  their  seed  occurs  xii.  3  ;  xxviii.  14  J,  where  it 
is  expressed  by  the  phrase  rTa^yiri  nhBlJ?^  bb  all  tliefcun- 
ilies  of  the  ground.  The  promise  to  Abraham  is  in  three 
instances  extended  to  three  particulars — the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, a  numerous  seed,  and  a  blessing  to  all  nations  (xii. 
3  ;  xviii.  18 ;  xxii.  18) ;  and  in  three  instances  limited  to 
the  first  two  (xiii.  14-17 ;  ch.  xv. ;  ch.  xvii.).  This  promise 
to  Abraham  is  repeated  to  his  successors,  both  in  its  full, 
xxvi.  4  (to  Isaac),  xxviii.  13,  14  (to  Jacob),  and  in  its  re- 
stricted form,  xxviii.  3,  4  (Isaac  to  Jacob),  xxxv.  11,  12 
(God  to  Jacob),  xlviii.  3,  4  (Jacob  to  Josej)h),  the  lan- 
guage of  these  last  three  passages  being  borrowed  from 
ch.  xvii.,  with  explicit  reference  to  the  culminating  and 
emphatic  utterance  there  made.  There  is  no  suggestion 
in  this  of  two  separate  documents  or  sources,  since  the 
promise  is  uttered  in  its  restricted  form  alike  by  Jehovah 
(J)  and  by  God  Almighty  (P).  And  the  simple  reason 
why  the  full  form  is  only  found  in  J  is  that  whenever 
the  name  God  Almighty  is  linked  with  this  promise  it 
is  with  a  definite  reference  to  ch.  xvii.,  and  it  is  accord- 
ingly shaped  into  conformity  with  this  model ;  see  No 
Discrepancies,  No.  3,  page  163. 

26.  npina  D'^S  inn  rhe  up  early  in  the  morning  (xix.  2,  27). 
This  verb,  which  is  almost  always  prolonged  into  the  full 
phrase,  occurs  eight  times  in  J,  and  eleven  times  in  E, 
not  reckoning  Josh.  iii.  1  JE,  which  it  has  been  found 
impracticable  to  separate.  It  does  not  occur  in  P,  be- 
cause the  passages  assigned  to  this  document  offer  no 
occasion  for  its  use. 

27.  nS";*!?  ^^nncn  hawed  himself  to  the  earth  (xviii.  2, 
xix.  1 1.     The  only  other  passages  in  the  Hexateuch  in 


VISIT   TO   ABRAHAM,    ETC.    (CH.   XVlII.    1-XIX.   28)   945 

which  this  phrase  occurs  are  xxiv.  52  ;  xxxiii.  3  ;  xlii.  6 ; 
xliii.  26  J ;  xxxvii.  10 ;  xlviii.  12  E ;  but  the  verb  occurs 
repeatedly  in  both  J  and  E  without  being  followed  by 
nSIS?  to  the  earth.  The  absence  of  n:2"ifi?  in  the  two  in- 
stances in  which  this  verb  is  found  in  a  section  assigned 
to  P  (xxiii.  7,  12j  is  therefore  not  peculiar,  and  is  not 
suggestive  of  a  different  source,  especially  as  its  omis- 
sion is  plainly  due  to  the  presence  of  'j^'ixn  in  the  same 
clause.  Comp.  Ex.  xxxiv.  8  ;  Josh.  v.  14  J,  where  it  is 
omitted  because  of  nsii?  in  the  preceding  clause. 

28.  "jn  S^ti  find  favor  (xviii.  3;  xix.  19)  always  in  J; 
not  in  any  paragraph  of  P.     See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  No.  10. 

29.  "Tpn  nicy  show  kindness  (xix.  19) ;  besides  in  the 
Hex.  xxiv.  12,  14,  49 ;  xxxii.  11  (E.  V.,  ver.  10) ;  xlvii.  29 ; 
Josh.  ii.  12,  14  J  ;  Gen.  xx.  13  ;  xxi.  23  ;  xl.  14  ;  Ex.  xx. 
6  E  ;  Dt.  V.  10  D.     Not  in  P. 

30.  nnn  hum,  without  ^55  anger,  meaning  to  he  angry 
(xviii,  30,  32) ;  besides  in  J  only,  iv.  5,  6 ;  xxxiv.  7  ;  but 
also  in  E,  xxxi.  35,  36 ;  xxxiv.  7 ;  xlv.  5  ;  Num.  xvi.  15. 
More  frequently  with  C|S  both  in  J  and  E ;  thus  Gen. 
xxxix.  19 ;  xliv.  18 ;  Ex.  iv.  14 ;  xxxii.  10, 11, 19,  22  ;  Num. 
xxii.  22,  27 ;  xxiv.  10 ;  xxxii,  10,  13  ;  Dt.  xxxi.  17  J ;  Gen. 
XXX.  2 ;  Ex.  xxii.  23 ;  Num.  xi.  1,  10,  33  ;  xii.  9 ;  xxv.  3  E. 
It  can,  therefore,  be  no  mark  of  diversity  of  authorship 
that  nnn  in  Josh.  vii.  1,  the  single  instance  in  which  it 
occurs  in  a  paragraph  assigned  to  P,  is  accompanied  by 

31.  The  disjunctive  question  (xviii,  21) ;  but  disjunc- 
tive questions  are  not  peculiar  to  J.  They  are  found  in 
P  as  well,  e.g.,  xvii.  17. 

32.  n'^'a'^3  S53  advanced  in  days  (xviii.  11) ;  this  expres- 
sion occurs  but  once  besides  in  J  (xxiv.  1),  It  is  found, 
also,  Josh.  xiii.  1  bis  ;  xxiii.  1,  2,  where  it  is  referred  to  D. 

33.  "  The  relation  of  this  narrative  to  P's  account  in 
xix.  29." 


246  THE   GENERATIONS   OF  TERAH 

But  xix.  29  is  not  anotlier  account  of  the  overthrow  of 
the  cities  of  the  plain,  which  is  to  be  referred  to  another 
writer.  It  simply  reverts  to  the  subject  of  the  overthrow 
as  previously  related,  in  order  to  introduce  further  state- 
ments respecting  Lot. 

34.  "The  difference  between  xviii.  12  and  xvii.  17." 
These  are  not  variant  explanations  of  the  origin  of  the 
name  of  Isaac,  as  though  one  writer  derived  it  from  the 
laughter  of  Abraham,  another  from  that  of  Sarah  before 
Isaac's  birth,  and  still  a  third  from  the  laughter  of  Sarah 
after  his  birth  (xxi.  6).  These  allusions  to  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  name  on  different  occasions  are  quite  con- 
sistent with  one  another,  and  with  a  common  authorship. 

lot's  incest   (CH.   XIX.  29-38) 

The  critics  generally  attribute  vs.  30-38  to  J,  and  ver. 
29  to  P,  alleging  that  this  verse  is  not  connected  either 
with  what  precedes  or  follows,  but  is  a  separate  and  in- 
dependent account  of  the  destruction  of  the  cities  of  the 
plain.  Kayser,  however,  substantially  concedes  the 
wliole  case  when  he  says  that  ver.  29  "  seems  like  a  con- 
densation of  an  account  by  P  of  Sodom's  overthrow, 
which  has  been  omitted  by  the  redactor."  Plainly  this 
is  not  a  recital,  but  the  summary  of  a  recital  elsewhere 
given.  And  the  narrative,  which  Kayser  misses,  is  just 
that  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  previous  part  of  the 
chapter,  but  which  the  critics  assign  to  a  different  docu- 
ment. Nevertheless  this  verse  is  tied  to  what  precedes, 
not  only  by  its  subject-matter,  but  by  its  language. 
Dillmann  claims  that  it  contains  five  of  P's  "  character- 
istic expressions,"  viz.  :  Elohim,  remembered  (as  viii.  1), 
tntTttJ  destroyed  {as  vi.  17;  ix.  11, 15),  cities  of  the  plain  (as 
xiii.  12),  in  ivMcli  Lot  divelt  (not  "  in  one  of  which  ;  "  this 
sense  is,  however,  justified  by  the  passage  to  which  he 


lot's   incest   (CH.   XIX.  29-38)  247 

Limself  refers,  viii.  4,  as  well  as  by  similar  examples, 
xxi.  7 ;  Judg.  xii.  7  ;  1  Sam.  xvii.  43  ;  2  Cliron.  xvi.  14  ; 
Job  xxi.  32).  But  in  fact  the  diction  of  this  verse  is  too 
closely  allied  to  the  antecedent  narrative  to  admit  of 
being  sundered  from  it :  nnilJ  destroy,  as  xix.  13  ;  xiii.  10  ; 
'^SSl  overthroto,  as  vs.  21,  25  ;  cities  of  the  plain,  see  ver. 
25  ;  in  which  Lot  dwelt  is  a  plain  allusion  to  xiii.  12, 
which  the  critics  for  this  reason  cut  out  of  its  connec- 
tion and  assign  to  P.  But,  as  has  been  previously  shown, 
it  is  indissolubly  attached  to  the  context  in  which  it 
stands.  That  Abram  continued  to  dwell  in  Canaan, 
while  Lot  dwelt  elsewhere,  is  the  very  point  of  the  whole 
narrative,  which  is  further  emphasized  in  the  promise 
which  immediately  follows  (xiii.  14-17).  "  God  remem- 
bered "  affords  a  good  illustration  of  critical  methods ;  xxx. 
22  is  parcelled  between  P,  E,  and  J,  though  the  words 
"  and  God  remembered  Rachel  "  are  the  only  ones  in  the 
entire  chapter  which  are  attributed  to  P.  God's  remem- 
bering Abraham  plainly  refers  back,  not  to  his  covenant 
with  Abraham  in  ch.  xvii.  (P),  but  to  Abraham's  interces- 
sion (xviii.  23-32,  J).  That  no  variant  representation  is 
made,  whether  of  the  reason  of  Lot's  deliverance  or  of 
the  circumstances  attending  it,  was  shown,  p.  165,  No 
Discrepancies,  No.  7. 

Moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  find  a  suitable  connection 
for  ver.  29  in  P.  It  is  manifestly  incongruous  to  attach 
it  to  the  end  of  ch.  xvii.,  which  on  the  partition  hypothe- 
sis it  immediately  follows.  It  is  customary  to  adopt 
Hupfeld's  gratuitous  assumption  that  it  has  been  trans- 
posed from  its  original  position  after  xiii.  12.  But 
apart  from  the  fact  that  this  is  building  hypothesis  upon 
hypothesis,  this  verse  could  never  have  stood  there.  It 
is  not  a  declaration  that  God  destroyed  the  cities  of  the 
plain,  but  that  when  he  destroyed  them  he  did  what  is 
here  stated.     This  implies  a  previous  account  of  the  de- 


248  THE   GENERATIONS   OF  TERAH 

struction,  or  at  least  a  mention  of  it.  But  no  such 
mention  is  to  be  found  anywhere  in  P.  The  verse  con- 
sequently belongs  where  it  stands. 

While  ver.  29  is  thus  a  recapitulation  of  the  preceding 
narrative,  it  is  not  added  to  it  for  the  sake  of  rounding  it 
up  to  a  conclusion,  as  Delitzsch  ^  formerly  maintained. 
Astruc  and  Eichhorn  correctly  regarded  it  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  following  jDaragraph  (vs.  30-38),  after  the 
brief  digression  (vs.  27,  28).  And  this  accounts  for  the 
use  of  Elohim.  Lot  had  thus  far  been  considered  as 
under  the  sheltering  protection  of  Abraham,  and  so  of 
the  God  of  Abraham.  The  last  link  of  connection  is 
now  severed.  Lot  passes  quite  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
holy  land,  and  henceforth  stands  in  no  relation  whatever 
to  Abraham  or  to  Abraham's  God.  He  is  reduced  to  the 
footing  of  an  alien,  and  God  is  Elohim  to  him  as  to  other 
Gentiles.     (See  pp.  152,  153.) 

Noldeke  claims  for  P,  in  addition  to  ver.  29,  the 
clause  in  ver.  30,  "  he  dwelt  in  the  mountain,"  and  ap- 
peals to  xiii.  12  (see  Marks  of  J,  No.  3,  under  ch.  xiii.) ; 
sxxvi.  8.  Other  critics,  however,  decline  in  this  instance 
to  abide  by  a  test  which  they  apply  elsewhere. 

Ilgen  referred  vs.  30-38  to  the  Second  Elohist,  and 
Boehmer  to  the  redactor,  on  the  ground  that  the  author 
of  the  preceding  naiTative,  in  Avhich  Lot  is  represented 
as  a  righteous  person,  could  not  have  related  this  shame- 
ful story.  But  the  sacred  writers  do  not  conceal  the 
weaknesses  or  the  sins  of  even  the  best  of  men ;  not 
Abraham's  prevarication,  nor  Jacob's  duplicity,  nor 
Noah's  intoxication.  The  peril  in  which  Lot  was  in- 
volving himself  by  his  inconsiderate  choice  of  a  resi- 
dence is  estimated  at  the  outset  (xiii.  12,  13) ;  that  he 
did  not  wholly  escape  the  infection  of  Sodom  is  shown 
(xix.  8) ;  preparation  is  thus  made  for  the  infamy  here 
'  In  the  second  and  tlih'd  editions  of  liis  Genesis. 


lot's   incest   (CH.    XIX.  29-38)  249 

disclosed.  That  this  paragraph  is  a  continuation  of  the 
preceding  narrative  is  further  apparent  from  the  points 
of  connection  between  them.  Lot's  being  in  Zoar  (ver. 
30)  corresponds  with  ver.  23  ;  his  going  to  dwell  in  the 
mountain  with  ver.  17 ;  the  mention  of  the  two  daugh- 
ters (vs.  15,  16)  implies  that  something  further  was  to 
be  related  respecting  them ;  the  absence  of  his  wife  is 
accounted  for  by  her  having  perished  (ver.  26).  In  fact, 
the  only  imaginable  reason  why  Lot  is  mentioned  in  the 
history  at  all  is  that  he  was  the  ancestor  of  Moab  and 
Ammon.  This  concluding  paragraph  of  the  chapter  is 
accordingly  indispensable  to  both  documents,  is  equally 
linked  with  both,  and  binds  both  together  in  a  common 
unity. 

The  critical  division  renders  P's  mention  of  Lot  alto- 
gether nugatory.  P  particularly  records  his  parentage 
and  his  relation  to  Abram  (xi.  27)  ;  his  accompanying 
Terah  and  Abram  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  to  Haran 
(ver.  81) ;  his  going  thence  with  Abram  to  Canaan  (xii. 
5) ;  his  large  property  and  retinue  (xiii.  6) ;  his  parting 
from  Abram  and  dwelling  in  the  cities  of  the  plain  (vs. 
11,  12) ;  the  deliverance  granted  him  for  Abram's  sake 
when  God  destroyed  these  cities  (xix.  29).  And  there 
he  disappears.  The  very  point  and  pm-pose  of  the  whole 
narrative  is  not  reached,^  viz. :  That  from  Lot  sprang  the 
tribes  of  Moab  and  Ammon,  which  are  thus,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  uniform  plan  of  Genesis,  removed  like  Ish- 
mael,  the  descendants  of  Keturah,  and  Esau,  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  promised  land,  that  it  may  remain  in  the 
undisturbed  possession  of  the  chosen  race.  The  missing 
paragraph  containing  the  key  to  the  significance  of  Lot 

'  Wellhausen  remarks  (Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  p.  15)  :  "Nol- 
deke  calls  attention  to  a  break  in  Q  (P) ;  he  must  without  doubt  have 
connected  the  two  nations  of  Moab  and  Ammon  with  Lot,  who  in  and 
of  himself  has  no  significance." 


250  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

(xix.  30-38)  is  ascribed  to  J  ;  but  his  account,  too,  is 
mutilated,  if  not  at  the  end,  at  the  beginning.  Lot  is 
suddenly  introduced  (xii.  4a),  ^^dth  no  intimation  who  he 
was,  and  no  previous  mention  of  him. 


MARKS   OF  J 

The  following  alleged  marks  of  J  evidently  afford  no 
indication  of  the  existence  of  distinct  documents. 

1.  nn"'p3  first-born  (vs.  31,  33,  34,  37j,  occurs  but  once 
besides  in  Hex.,  viz. :  Gen.  xxix.  26,  which  is  cut  out  of 
an  E  context  and  assigned  to  J  purely  on  account  of  this 
and  the  following  word. 

2.  TTpV"!  younger  (vs.  31,  34,  35,  38),  occurs  besides  in 
J,  XXV.  23  ;  xliii.  33  ;  in  xxix.  26,  xlviii.  14,  Josh.  vi. 
26  it  occurs  in  mixed  contexts,  and  is  referred  to  J 
purely  on  account  of  this  word. 

3.  ynr  n^n  preserve  seed  (vs.  32,  34).  See  ch.  vi.-ix., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  12. 

The  charge  that  this  story  is  a  product  of  national  an- 
tipathy, and  originated  in  the  conflicts  of  a  later  period, 
will  only  be  credited  by  those  who  for  other  reasons  dis- 
trust the  truth  of  the  narratives  of  Genesis.  That  a  na- 
tion sprung  from  such  a  source  should  practise  debasing 
orgies  (Num.  xxv.  1-3)  is  not  surprising. 


ABRAHAM  WITH   ABIMELECH,   KING   OF   GERAE   (CH.    XX.) 
CRITICAL    EMBARRASSMENT 

The  divisive  hypothesis  encountered  an  obstacle  in 
this  chapter  by  which  it  was  seriously  embarrassed,  and 
which  finally  led  to  the  overthrow  of  its  earlier  forms. 
The  more  minute  and  thorough  the  analysis  was  made, 
the  more  apparent  it  became  that  neither  the  document 


ABRAHAM   IN   OERAR   (CH.   XX.)  251 

hypothesis,  as  at  first  proposed,  nor  the  supplement 
hypothesis,  was  capable  of  being  applied  to  this  chapter 
or  to  the  subsequent  portion  of  Genesis.  The  alterna- 
tion of  the  divine  names,  Elohim  and  Jehovah,  in  suc- 
cessive sections,  had  been  the  starting-point  of  the  hy- 
pothesis, and  was  relied  upon  as  the  palpable  evidence 
of  its  reality.  Two  writers,  the  Elohist  and  the  Jeho- 
vist,  were  supposed  to  be  thus  clearly  indicated.  The 
characteristic  diction  and  style  of  each  was  made  out 
by  a  diligent  comparison  of  the  sections  respectively  at- 
tributed to  them.  All  went  on  swimmingly  at  the  be- 
ginning, fresh  criteria  being  gathered  as  the  work  pro- 
ceeded. 

But  unfortunately  neither  this  chapter  nor  those  that 
follow  can  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  conclusions 
thus  far  reached.  The  words  associated  with  Elohim  in 
the  account  of  the  creation  (Gen.  i.)  and  of  the  flood  (vi.- 
ix.),  have  disappeared  entirely,  or  only  reappear  in  Gen- 
esis for  the  most  part  in  Jehovah  sections ;  and  Elohim 
in  ch.  XX.  and  henceforth  is  associated  with  the  diction 
and  the  style  held  to  be  characteristic  of  the  Jehovist. 
The  natural  inference  is  that  the  critics  have  been  too 
hasty  in  their  conclusions.  They  have  made  deductions 
from  premises  which  do  not  warrant  them,  and  which 
are  nullified  by  a  more  extended  examination  of  the 
facts.  They  have  mistaken  the  lofty  style  used  in  de- 
scribing grand  creative  acts  or  the  vocabulary  employed 
in  setting  forth  the  imiversal  catastrophe  of  the  deluge 
for  the  fixed  habit  of  an  Elohist  writer,  and  set  it  over 
against  the  graceful  style  of  ordinary  narrative  in  the 
early  Jehovist  sections.  But  in  this  chapter  and  in  the 
rest  of  Genesis,  whenever  Elohim  occurs  in  narrative 
sections,  the  stately  periods  of  the  account  of  the  crea- 
tion and  the  vocabulary  of  the  creation  and  the  flood  are 
dropped,  and  terms  appropriate  to  the  common  affairs  of 


252  THE   GENERATION'S   OE   TERAH 

life  and  the  ordinary  coui'se  of  human  events  are  em- 
ployed by  the  Elohist  precisely  as  they  are  by  the  Je- 
hovist. 

Elohim  occurs  throughout  this  chapter  (vs.  3,  6,  11, 
13,  17),  except  in  the  last  verse  (ver.  18)  where  Jehovah 
is  used.  But  the  words  and  phrases  are  those  which  are 
held  to  be  characteristic  of  the  Jehovist. 


DICTION  OF   CHAPTER  XX. 

1.  yoi  to  journey  (ver.  1),  is  the  standing  expression  in 
J  for  the  journeying  of  the  patriarchs  (xii.  9 ;  xiii.  11 ; 
xxxiii.  12,  17). 

2.  n^iisn  fy^^  the  land  of  the  south  (ver.  1),  occurs  three 
times  in  the  Hexateuch,  and  but  once  besides  iji  the 
whole  Old  Testament,  viz.:  Gen.  xxiv.  62  ;  Josh.  xv.  19 
J ;  Num.  xiii.  29,  in  a  context  where  J  and  E  are,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  critics,  confusedly  mingled,  and  this  verse, 
or  a  part  of  it,  is  assigned  to  E  simply  and  avowedly  be- 
cause of  this  one  expression.  SJirn,  the  south,  whether  as  a 
part  of  the  country  or  as  a  point  of  the  compass,  is  men- 
tioned nowhere  else  in  Genesis  except  in  J  (xii.  9 ;  xiii. 
1,  3,  14 ;  xxiv.  62 ;  xxviii.  14). 

3.  Kadesh  and  8hur  (ver.  1)  are  mentioned  by  J  (xvi. 
7,  14) ;  so  is  Gerar  subsequently  as  the  abode  of  Isaac 
(xxvi.  1),  who  habitually  repeated  what  his  father  had 
done. 

4.  ^nx  Lord  (ver.  4),  as  xviii.  3,  27,  30-32  J.  See 
ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  4. 

5.  ^"^y:  prophet  (ver.  7).  This  term  is  nowhere  else 
applied  to  Abraham  in  the  Hexateuch,  but  the  same 
thought  is  expressed  in  xviii.  17  sqq.  J,  where  Jehovah 
makes  him  his  confidant. 

6.  ni'an  miw  thou  shalt  surely  die  (ver.  7),  as  ii.  17 ;  iii. 
4  J. 


abraha:m  in  gerar  (ch.  xx.)  253 

7.  1)?33  D"^3Trn  rise  early  in  the  morning  (ver.  8),  as 
xix.  2,  27  ;  xxvi.  31  J.  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  26. 

8.  rr^tey  n^  ivhat  hast  thou  done  (ver.  9),  as  iii.  13 ;  iv. 
10 ;  xii.  18  ;  xxvi.  10  J.  See  ch.  xii.  10-20,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  7. 

9.  liW"^,    ^  ought  not  to  he  done  (ver.  9),  as  xxxiv.  7  J. 

10.  y\  onlij,  surely  (ver.  11),  as  vi.  5  ;  xix.  8 ;  xxiv.  8, 
etc.,  J.     See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  7. 

11.  '\y^'bv/or  the  sake  of  (ver.  11),  as  xii.  17  J. 

12.  nDpS?  indeed  (ver.  12),  only  besides  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Josh.  vii.  20  J. 

13.  ion  nicy  shoiu  kindness  (ver.  13),  as  xix.  19  ;  xxiv. 
12,  14,  49  J.  '  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  29. 

14.  nnsizj  maid-servant  (ver.  14),  as  xii.  16 ;  xv.i.  2 ; 
xxiv.  35  J. 

15.  Tj'^SBb  i2"iS?  my  land  is  before  thee  (ver.  15),  as  xiii. 
9 ;  xxxiv.  10  ;  comp.  xxiv.  51  J. 

16.  rfpin  to  set  right  (ver.  16),  as  xxiv.  14,  44  ;  Lev. 
xix.  17  J  (so  Dillmann).  See  ch.  xxi.  22-34,  Marks  of  E, 
No.  7. 

Knobel  sought  to  adapt  the  supplement  hypothesis 
to  this  state  of  facts  by  assuming  that  J,  to  whom  he  as- 
signs this  chapter,  here  and  in  other  like  passages  di'ew 
his  materials  from  a  written  source,  which  was  in  the 
habit  of  using  the  divine  name  Elohim ;  and  that  ver. 
18  was  independently  added  by  J  himself.  Hupfeld 
abandoned  the  supplement  hypothesis  altogether,  and 
claimed  that  this  and  all  similar  passages  belonged  to 
a  third  document,  E,  distinct  from  P  and  J,  but  which 
resembled  P  in  making  use  of  Elohim,  and  resembled  J 
in  style  and  diction.  This  is  now  the  popular  method 
among  the  critics  of  getting  over  the  difficulty,  ver.  18 
being  commonly  attributed  to  the  redactor.  It  is,  how- 
ever, only  an  evasion,  and  an  impossible  evasion;   for 


254  THE  GENERATIOTSrS    OF   TERAH 

this  chapter  cannot  belong  to  a  document  distinct  from 
the  preceding  narrative,  to  which  it  is  indissolubly  linked. 

NOT  EEFEEABLE   TO   A  DISTINCT   DOCUMENT 

Dillmann,  indeed,  maintains  that  "  it  must  originally 
have  stood  in  a  different  connection,  and  have  been  put 
here  by  E."  And  the  reason  urged  is  that  the  narrative 
is  inconsistent  with  the  age  ascribed  to  Sarah.  "  Accord- 
ing to  xvii.  17  P,  Sarah  is  ninety  years  old,  according 
to  xviii.  11,  12  J,  she  is  advanced  in  years  and  past  child- 
bearing  in  the  course  of  nature  ;  so  that  she  cannot  pos- 
sibly have  still  been  attractive  to  strangers."  This  has 
already  been  fully  answered  in  the  preliminary  remarks 
to  this  general  section,  under  the  head  of  No  Discrep- 
ancies, No.  9.  In  the  longevity  of  the  patriarchs  Sa- 
rah may  not  have  been  devoid  of  personal  charms  even 
at  the  age  of  ninety ;  or  Abimelech  may  have  been 
prompted  by  the  desire  to  form  a  connection  with  Abra- 
ham, who  was  the  head  of  a  powerful  clan.  And,  at  any 
rate,  no  argument  can  thence  be  drawn  for  a  diversity  of 
documents.  Why  may  not  the  original  writer  have  be- 
lieved what,  on  the  critics'  own  hypothesis,  it  is  manifest 
that  El  believed  ? 

He  further  argues  that  this  chapter  can  neither  be 
from  P  nor  from  J.  Not  from  P,  according  to  whom 
Abraham  dwelt  in  Hebron  (xxiii.  2, 19 ;  xxv.  9 ;  xxxv.  27), 
and  there  is  no  trace  of  his  dwelling  in  Gerar  or  Beersheba ; 
and  not  from  J,  since  he  has  the  parallel  narrative,  xii. 
10-20.  But  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  this  chap- 
ter and  the  passages  referred  by  the  critics  to  P  and  to 
J ;  and  no  reason  why  it  could  not  have  been  written  by 
the  common  author  of  those  passages.  That  Abraham 
was  at  Hebron  at  the  time  of  Sarah's  death  creates  no 
presumption  that  he  had  not  been  at  Gerar  at  the  time 


ABRAHAM   IN   GERAR   (CH.    XX.)  255 

of  this  occurrence  thirty-seven  years  before.  And  accord- 
ing to  the  critical  partition  of  the  text,  Abraham's  abode 
in  Hebron  is  spoken  of  not  by  P  only,  but  by  J  as  well 
(xiii.  18). 

The  incident  related  in  this  chapter  bears  a  striking  re- 
semblance to  that  in  xii.  10-20.  The  critics  assume  that 
such  an  affair  could  occur  but  once,  and  hence  conclude 
that  these  can  only  be  variant  accounts  of  the  same  oc- 
currence by  two  different  writers.  It  is  obvious,  however, 
that  upon  the  critical  hypothesis  R  regarded  them  as  dis- 
tinct events,  differing  in  time,  place,  and  several  particu- 
lars. And  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  original  writer 
may  not  have  been  of  the  same  mind,  and  inserted  both 
in  his  narrative.  There  are  numerous  indications  that 
this  was  really  the  case.  It  is  distinctly  declared  (ver. 
13)  that  Abraham  had  concerted  with  Sarah  to  have  her 
pass  as  his  sister  in  more  than  one  place  ;  and  the  men- 
tion of  such  an  arrangement  would  be  unmeaning  if  it 
had  not  been  actually  carried  into  effect.  The  brevity  of 
the  statement  in  ver.  2  leaves  the  conduct  of  both  Abra- 
ham and  Abimelech  unexplained,  and  is  an  implied  ref- 
erence to  a  previous  narrative  of  the  same  sort,  in  which 
the  motives  of  the  actors  are  more  fully  stated.  The 
writer  assumes  that  his  readers  will  understand  the  situ- 
tion  from  the  like  instance  before  related,  and  so  thinks 
it  unnecessary  to  go  into  particulars.  "From  thence" 
(ver.  1)  is  an  explicit  reference  to  a  locality  mentioned 
before,  which  can  only  be  "the  oaks  of  Mamre  "  (xviii.  1 
J),  i.e.,  Hebron  (xiii.  18  J,  xxiii.  19  P).  In  xxi.  32, 
which  is  universally  confessed  to  be  a  continuation  of 
the  narrative  in  ch.  xx.,  and  by  the  same  hand,  Abraham 
is  in  Beersheba,  just  as  he  is  in  the  following  verse  (xxi. 
33  J),  and  his  presence  there  is  nowhere  else  explained. 
And  in  ver.  34  J  speaks  of  his  sojourn  in  the  land  of  the 
Philistines,  where  he  was  sojom-ning  in  ch.  xx.,  for  Gerar 


'256  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

(vs.  1,  2)  was  the  capital  of  the  Philistine  territoiy ;  the 
king  of  Gerar  was  the  king  of  the  Philistines  (xxvi.  1). 
The  nocturnal  revelation  (vs.  3,  6)  has  its  parallels  in 
J  (xxvi.  24  ;  xxviii.  16),  and  in  a  section  marked  by 
"  Jehovah,"  though  its  reference  to  J  is  arbitrarily  dis- 
puted (xv.  1,  12,  seq.).  The  language  of  Abimelech  (vs. 
9,  10)  recalls  that  of  Pharaoh  (xii.  18) ;  and  Abraham's 
reply,  ver.  11,  resembles  xii.  12.  The  representation  of 
the  moral  character  of  the  people  (ver.  11)  corresponds 
with  XV.  16.  There  is  no  discrepancy  between  ver.  12 
and  xi.  29  (J)  or  31  (P).  As  Abraham's  wife,  Sarah  was 
Terah's  daughter-in-law  ;  the  mention  of  the  fact  that  she 
was  also  his  daughter  was  purposely  reserved  for  this 
place,  that  the  difficulty  might  not  be  solved  before  it 
had  arisen.  "  God  caused  me  to  wander  "  (ver.  13)  cor- 
responds precisely  with  xii.  1,  the  injunction  to  go  to  a 
land  not  yet  disclosed.  Abraham's  intercession  (ver.  17) 
for  Abimelech  is  like  that  for  Sodom  (xviii.  23  sqq.). 

The  transaction  here  recorded  also  falls  precisely  into 
line  with  both  the  antecedent  and  subsequent  history 
of  Abraham,  which  is  just  a  continued  succession  of  tri- 
als for  testing  and  enhancing  his  faith  in  the  promise  of 
God,  increasing  in  intensity  until  the  climax  is  reached, 
and  a  period  put  to  them  all  in  ch.  xxii.  And  it  fits  ex- 
actly into  the  situation,  coming  as  it  does  after  the  defi- 
nite promise  of  xvii.  19,  21,  and  its  gracious  renewal  at 
that  visit  of  unequalled  condescension  (xviii.  10),  but  be- 
fore the  conception  and  birth  of  the  promised  child  (xxi. 
2).  All  is  now  put  in  peril  by  the  threatened  loss  of  Sarah, 
which  yet  was  averted  by  immediate  divine  interference. 
This  was  one  more  step  in  that  discipline  with  which  the 
patriarch's  life  was  filled,  and  that  experience  of  almighty 
guardianship  by  which  he  was  trained  to  implicit  confi- 
dence in,  and  obedience  to,  the  word  of  a  covenant-keep- 
ing God,  and  thus  fitted  for  the  unique  position  of  the 


ABRAHAM   IN    GERAR   (CH.    XX.)  257 

father  of  the  faithful  and  the  head  of  the  chosen  race 
(xAdii.  18,  19). 

The  contention  that  ch.  xx.  requires  more  time  than 
can  be  allowed  in  the  interval  between  ch.  xviii.  and  xxi. 
rests  upon  a  misinterpretation  of  vs.  17,  18,  as  though 
the  infliction  there  spoken  of  was  sterility,  which  could 
only  become  apparent  after  the  lapse  of  a  considerable  pe- 
riod. But  Abimelech  needed  to  be  healed  as  well  as  his 
wife  and  maid-servants,  and  he  had  thus  been  hindered 
from  approaching  Sarah  (ver.  6).  The  affection  accord- 
ingly was  one  that  prevented  sexual  intercourse,  and  so 
was  an  obstacle  to  conception  and  birth. ^ 

'  Ilgen  (Urkunden,  p.  413)  infers  that  Sarali  must  have  remained  in 
Abimelech's  palace  at  least  two  years.  And  Vater  adds  that  room  can- 
not be  found  before  ch.  xxi.  for  all  that  took  place  in  ch.  xviii. -xx.  To 
this  latter  suggestion  Ewald  very  properly  replies  "  that  tlie  author  no- 
where says  that  the  affair  of  Lot's  daughters  (xix.  29-38)  look  place  at 
this  time  ;  he  merely  attaches  it  to  the  story  of  Sodom,  as  that  was  a 
convenient  place."  His  treatment  of  the  occurrence  at  Gerar  in  the 
same  connection  is  so  admirable  that  it  may  be  repeated  here.  I  quote 
from  his  maiden  publication  (Die  Komposition  der  Genesis  kritisch  un- 
tersucht.  183:^  p.  228  sqq).  "  Abraham  is  still  {i.e.,  in  ch.  xix.)  at-  the 
oaks  of  Mamre,  as  the  writer  had  first  stated  (xiii.  18),  and  then  referred 
back  to  this  statement  (xiv.  13,  and  xviii.  1).  Now  he  removes  to  Ge- 
rar, and  although  the  expression  'from  thence'  (xx.  1)  does  not  de- 
fine the  starting-point  of  his  journey,  it  refers  to  what  preceded,  and  the 
direction  from  Mamre  to  Gerar  is  so  plainly  indicated  by  the  added 
word  'the  south,' that  it  is  an  adequate  substitute  for  the  name  'oaks 
of  Mamre.'  Abraham  says  of  his  wife  at  the  outset  '  she  is  my  sister ' 
(ver.  2).  In  and  of  itself  this  is  quite  unintelligible ;  and  a  Hebrew 
narrator  would  certainly  have  told  this  more  plainly,  if  he  had  not  on 
a  like  occasion  stated  in  more  detail  what  moved  Abraham  to  it  (xii. 
11-13).  Was  it  necessary  now  to  repeat  this  here  ?  The  rapidity  with 
which  he  hastens  on  to  the  fact  itself  shows  what  he  presupposes  in 
the  reader.  But  while  in  the  first  event  of  the  kind  (ch.  xii.),  in  Egypt, 
the  narrator  briefly  mentions  Pharaoh's  gifts  and  plagues,  he  sets  forth 
in  more  detail  the  cause  of  Abraham's  conduct.  The  reader  might  cer- 
tainly be  surprised  that  the  same  thing  could  happen  twice  to  Abraham 
The  narrator  is  conscious  of  this  ;  and  in  order  to  remove  every  doubt 
of  this  sort,  which  might  so  easily  arise,  he  lets  Abraham  clear  up  the 
17 


258  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

The  identity  of  language,  the  intimate  connection  of 
this  passage  with  the  context  in  which  it  stands,  and  the 
direct  alhisions  to  previous  portions  of  the  narrative 
demonstrate  that  this  chapter  cannot  belong  to  a  distinct 
and  independent  document,  but  is  a  continuation  of  the 
preceding.  And  the  fact  that  Elohim  in  an  ordinary 
historical  narrative  is  associated  with  precisely  the  same 
style  and  diction  that  is  found  in  Jehovah  passages  an- 
nuls the  alleged  marks  of  discrimination  urged  by  critics 
in  previous  portions  of  Genesis,  which  are  thus  shoAvn 
to  be  due  to  a  difference,  not  of  writer  but  of  theme. 
This  chapter  not  only  affords  no  argument  for  a  third 
document  E,  but  renders  decisive  testimony  against  it, 
and  against  the  hypothesis  of  documents  in  general. 

Elohim  is  used  throughout  this  chapter  because  Abim- 
elech,  who  is  prominent  in  it  is  a  Gentile.  It  is  no 
objection  to  this  that  Abimelech  uses  the  name  "Je- 
hovah "  in  speaking  to  Isaac  (xxvi.  28,  29) ;  for  he  there 
means  specifically  Isaac's  God,  who  had  so  signally 
blessed  him  ;  just  as  in  Ex.  xviii.,  although  Elohim  is 
prevailingly  used  in  describing  Jethro's  visit  to  Moses, 

puzzle  in  what  he  says  to  Abimelech  (vs.  11-13).  Thus  the  narrator 
himself  meets  every  objection  that  could  be  made,  and  by  the  words 
'  when  God  caused  me  to  wander  from  my  fathers  house '  (ver.  13), 
he  looks  back  so  plainly  over  all  thus  far  related,  and  at  the  same  time 
indicates  so  exactly  the  time  when  he  first  thought  of  passing  his  wife 
off  as  his  sister  everywhere  in  foreign  lands,  that  this  can  only  be  ex- 
plained from  the  previous  narrative  in  ch.  xii.  Moreover,  the  circum- 
stances are  different  in  the  two  narratives.  Here  Abimelech  makes 
Abraham  a  variety  of  presents  after  he  understood  the  affair ;  there 
Pharaoh  before  he  understood  it.  Here  God  himself  appears,  there  he 
simply  punishes.  Here  Abraham  is  called  a  prophet  (ver.  7),  as  he 
could  not  have  been  at  once  denominated  when  God  had  but  just  called 
him.  The  circumstances,  the  issue,  and  the  description  differ  in  many 
respects,  and  thus  attest  that  this  story  is  quite  distinct  from  the  former 
one."  In  a  foot-note  Ewald  makes  light  of  the  objection  from  Sarah's 
age,  and  appeals  to  similar  instances,  which  I  have  no  means  of  verify- 
ing. 


ABRAHAM    IN    GERAR    (CH.   XX.)  259 

Jehovah  is  employed  in  vs.  9-11,  where  Jethro  refers 
specifically  to  the  God  of  Israel  in  distinction  from  all 
other  gods.  And  in  the  book  of  Jonah  the  mariners, 
who  had  vainly  cried  each  unto  his  god  to  quell  the 
storm  (i.  5),  turned  at  length  to  the  God  of  Jonah  and 
prayed  to  and  worshipped  Jehovah  (vs.  14,  16).  Elohim 
is  construed  as  a  plural  in  xx.  13,  in  accommodation  to 
pagan  ideas  and  forms  of  speech  and  not  as  a  character- 
istic of  E  ;  cf.  Ex.  xxxii.  4 ;  1  Sam.  iv.  8  ;  for  in  passages 
assigned  to  E  the  same  construction  ordinarily  prevails 
as  is  usual  elsewhere.  The  plural  is  used  in  Gen.  xxxv.  7 
because  a  vision  of  both  God  and  angels  is  referred  to  ; 
Ex.  xxii.  8  (E.  V.,  ver.  9)  is  in  a  code  of  laws,  which  in 
the  opinion  of  the  critics  was  not  written  by  E,  but  copied 
by  him  into  his  document ;  Deut.  v.  23  (E.  V.  ver.  26)  is 
referred  to  D ;  and  in  Josh.  xxiv.  19  the  plural  construc- 
tion of  Elohim  occurs  in  conjunction  with  the  name  Je- 
hovah. The  use  of  this  construction  warrants  no  imputa- 
tion upon  the  strictness  of  the  monotheism  of  E  ;  for  like 
constructions  occur  in  the  most  rigorously  monotheistic 
contexts,  e.g.,  Deut.  v.  23  (26) ;  2  Sam.  vii.  22,  23 ;  Jer. 
xxiii.  36 ;  cf.  in  P,  Gen.  i.  26,  and  in  J,  xi.  7. 

"  Jehovah  "  in  xx.  18  is  not  traceable  to  a  different 
writer,  whether  J  (Knobel,  Kayser)  or  R,  as  Hupfeld  and 
most  critics  assume.  It  is  Jehovah's  interference  on 
behalf  of  Abraham's  wife  that  is  there  described.  The 
name  is,  therefore,  strictly  appropriate. 

MAEKS   OF   E 

1.  ira^  maid-servant  (ver.  17)  occurs  besides  in  pas- 
sages referred  to  E  (xxi.  10,  12,  13  ;  xxx.  3  ;  xxxi.  33  ; 
Ex.  ii.  5)  ;  in  the  fourth  commandment  (Ex.  xx.  10)  and 
in  the  Covenant  Code,  supposed  by  the  critics  not  to 
be  the  work  of  E  (Ex.  xxi.  7,  20,  26,  27,  32 ;  xxiii.  12) ; 


260  THE   GENERATION'S    OF   TERAH 

also  in  P  (Lev.  xxv.  6,  44  bis) ;  and  several  times  in 
Deuteronomy.  Notwithstanding  tlie  fact  that  this  word 
is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  E,  it  is  claimed  that  E  uses  it 
instead  of  nnSTT,  which  is  employed  by  J  and  P.  But 
nnstzj  occurs  in  E  (Gen,  xx.  14  ;  xxx.  18),  and  it  is  only 
by  the  questionable  device  of  cutting  a  clause  out  of  an 
E  context  and  assigning  it  to  P  or  J,  that  the  admission 
is  escaped  that  E  uses  it  also  in  xxix.  24,  29 ;  xxx.  4,  7. 
Both  words  occur  in  this  chapter,  and  are  discriminat- 
ingly used.  rraS!  maid-servant,  as  a  concubine  of  Abime- 
lech  (ver.  17),  is  clearly  distinguished  from  nnsTlJ  ivoman- 
servant,  given  for  bond-service  to  Abraham  (ver.  14). 
That  the  former  is  a  less  servile  term  than  the  latter 
plainly  appears  also  from  1  Sam.  xxv.  41.  This  distinc- 
tion is  clearly  stated  by  Ilgen  (p.  399),  who  renders  them 
respectively  "  maid  "  and  "  slave."  The  assertion  that 
nhBlO  (ver.  14)  is  a  textual  error,  or  that  the  clause  "men- 
servants  and  women-servants  "  is  an  addition  by  R,  is 
altogether  groundless. 

2.  nnb  (for  nb)  heart,  (vs.  5,  6) ;  besides  in  E  (xxxi.  26  ; 
Ex.  xiv.  5  ;  Josh.  xiv.  7  ;  xxiv.  23) ;  in  J  (Lev.  xix.  17, 
xxvi.  36,  41,  so  Dill. ;  Num.  xv.  39  ;  Josh.  vii.  5)  ;  D 
(Josh.  V.  1  ;  xxii.  5 ;  xxiii.  14)  ;  Ed  (Josh.  ii.  11). 

3.  bbsrin  to  ijray  (vs.  7,  17) ;  besides  in  Hexateuch, 
only  Num.  xi.  2  ;  xxi.  7  E  ;  Deut.  ix.  20,  26  D. 

4.  Dibn  dream  (vs.  3,  6)  ;  besides  in  E  (xxxi.  10,  11, 
24 ;  xxxvii.  5,  6,  8,  9  bis,  10,  19,  20  ;  xl.  5  bis,  8,  9  bis, 
16 ;  xli.  7,  8,  11  bis,  12,  15  bis,  17,  22,  25,  26,  32  ;  xlii. 
9)  ;  in  J  (Num.  xii.  6  ;  so  Dillmann).  The  occurrence  of 
Elohim  in  connection  with  the  mention  of  dreams  is  due 
not  to  the  peculiarity  of  a  writer  (E),  but  to  the  nature 
of  the  case.  No  dreams  are  mentioned  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch, but  those  which  are  prophetic.  When  God  re- 
vealed himself  to  those  not  of  the  chosen  race,  of  course 
Elohim  and  not  Jehovah  would  be  used,  and  the  method 


ABEAHAM    IN    GERAR   (CH.   XX.)  261 

was  uniformly  by  dreams,  as  the  lowest  form  of  divin© 
communication ;  thus  to  Abimelecli  (xx.  3,  6) ;  Laban 
(xxxi.  24) ;  the  butler  and  baker  of  Pharaoh  (xl.  5  sqq.) ; 
and  Pharaoh  himself  (xli.  1  sqq.).  So  also  to  Jacob, 
when  on  the  point  of  leaving  Canaan  for  Paddan-aram 
(xxviii.  12) ;  or  for  Egypt  (xlvi.  2)  ;  and  in  Paddan-aram 
(xxxi.  11)  ;  and  to  Joseph  in  his  childhood  (xxxvii.  5 
sqq.).  Elohim  does  not  occur  in  the  narrative  of  Jo- 
seph's dreams  ;  nevertheless  these  are  by  the  critics  re- 
ferred to  E  under  the  rule  that  all  dreams  must  be  given 
to  E,  a  rule  which  sufficiently  explains  why  no  dreams 
are  to  be  found  in  J.  But  J  likewise  speaks  of  Jehovah 
revealing  himself  to  Isaac  at  night  (xxvi.  24)  ;  to  Jacob 
in  his  sleep  (xxviii.  16) ;  and  similarly  to  Abram  (xv.  1, 
12,  13).  The  futility  of  the  critical  attempts  to  refer 
these  communications  made  to  Abram  to  E  and  K,  has 
already  been  shown.  The  revelation  to  Abram  (xv.  1)  is 
called  a  vision,  a  higher  form  of  divine  communication 
than  a  dream,  just  as  that  to  Jacob  (xlvi.  2)  is  called  by 
E.  That  no  divine  dreams  are  granted  to  Gentiles  in  J 
paragraphs  is  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  Elohim  is 
necessarily  used  in  such  a  connection.  If  God  speaks 
directly  to  men  in  J,  so  he  does  in  E  to  Abraham  (xxi. 
12 ;  xxii.  1) ;  and  to  Jacob  (xxxv.  1),  without  its  being 
said  that  it  was  in  a  dream.  In  P,  according  to  the  di- 
vision made  by  the  critics,  God  reveals  himself  but  twice 
in  the  entire  patriarchal  period — once  to  Abraham  (ch. 
xvii.),  and  once  to  Jacob  (xxxv.  9),  in  spite  of  the  explicit 
mention  made  (Ex.  ii.  24 ;  vi.  3  P)  that  he  had  appeared 
to  Isaac  and  covenanted  with  him  ;  which  is  a  positive 
proof  that  their  division  is  at  fault.  It  has  been  said 
that  according  to  E  God  appears  neither  formally  nor 
visibly,  but  only  in  dreams.  And  yet,  if  we  may  believe 
Dillmann,  it  is  E  who  records  God's  wrestling  with  Jacob 
(xxxii.  24-31).     And  he  adds  that  Wellhausen's  "  argu- 


262  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

ments  to  the  contrary  prove  nothing  or  rest  on  mere 
postulates." 

5,  bb5  "TaSi  (ver.  2),  or  b  Tax  (ver.  13)  say  concerning.  No 
other  example  is  adduced  from  the  Hexateuch.  In  Num. 
xxiii.  23,  referred  to  in  Ewald's  "Hebrew  Grammar,"  § 
217,  c,  the  expression  has  not  this  sense,  and  is  besides 
attributed  by  Wellhausen  to  J. 

6.  "jiiDS  innocency  (ver.  5) ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch. 

BIRTH   OF   ISAAC  AND  DISMISSAL  OP   ISHMAEL   (CH.    XXI.   1-21) 
CEITICAL  PERPLEXITY 

The  opening  verses  of  this  chapter  have  given  some 
trouble  to  the  critics,  and  have  been  very  variously  ap- 
portioned. Astruc  and  Eichhorn  were  content  to  follow 
the  indications  of  the  divine  names  throughout,  and  so 
assigned  the  first  verse  and  the  last  two  verses  of  the 
chapter  to  J,  and  all  the  rest  to  P.  As,  however,  ver.  1 
is  intimately  related  to  ver.  2,  Gramberg  assigned  it  also 
to  P,  assuming  that  "Jehovah  "  in  each  clause  had  orig- 
inally been  "Elohim,"  and  that  the  verse  was  an  apt 
specimen  of  P's  diffuseness.  Knobel  separated  the  two 
clauses  of  ver.  1,  and  gave  the  first  to  J,  being  thus  able 
to  retain  the  Jehovah  of  that  clause,  while  contending 
that  in  the  second  clause  it  had  been  substituted  for 
Elohim ;  P's  portion  of  the  chapter  was  limited  by  him 
to  vs.  lb-5,  all  the  remainder  being  transferred  to  J, 
who  here,  as  in  ch.  xx.,  was  supposed  to  have  made  use 
of  an  earlier  source  characterized  by  its  employment  of 
Elohim.  Hupfeld  converted  this  earlier  source  into  an 
independent  document  E,  assigning  to  it  vs.  6,  9-32,  and 
giving  vs.  7,  8,  to  J.  Noldeke  pointed  out  that  Tipptb  in 
Ms  old  age,  ver.  2  (P)  was  identical  with  the  expression 
in  ver.  7  (J),  and  that  consequently  it  must  have  been 


BIRTH    OF   ISAAC,    ETC.    (CH.    XXI.    1-21)  263 

inserted  there  by  R.  But  neither  is  rrin  conceived  re- 
garded as  a  word  belonging  to  P ;  hence  Wellhausen  in- 
sisted on  limiting  P's  portion  of  the  chapter  to  vs.  2b-5, 
and  giving  ver.  1  to  R,  who  thus  effected  the  transition 
from  the  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter  to  the  account 
of  the  birth  of  Isaac.  The  consequence  of  this  is  that 
the  paragraph  referred  to  P  begins  in  the  middle  of  a 
sentence,  and  that  J  does  not  record  the  birth  of  Isaac 
at  all.  Dillmann,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Genesis,  seeks 
to  remedy  these  incongruities  by  the  artificial  process  of 
splitting  the  first  and  second  verses  in  two,  and  uniting 
their  alternate  clauses,  thus  giving  to  J  vs.  la,  2a,  7 ;  to 
P  lb,  2b-5;  and  to  E  vs.  6,  8-21.  Budde^  carries  the 
splitting  process  still  further  by  dividing  ver.  6  in  two, 
and  transposing  its  second  clause  to  the  end  of  ver.  7. 
But  even  thus  he  lags  behind  Ilgen  in  the  work  of  dis- 
integration, who  long  ago  divided  ver.  7  as  well  as  ver.  6 
between  J  and  E.  But  in  no  one  of  these  methods  of 
partition  does  E  make  mention  of  the  birth  of  Isaac. 
Boehmer  endeavors  to  relieve  this  difficulty,  and  to  allow 
each  document  a  share  in  this  announcement '  by  assign- 
ing to  J  vs.  1,  2b,  7 ;  to  P  vs.  2a,  c,  4,  5 ;  and  to  E  vs.  3, 
6,8. 

But  all  this  critical  toil  is  as  fruitless  as  it  is  unneces- 
sary. The  whole  passage  is  so  closely  bound  together  as 
neither  to  require  nor  to  permit  partition.  "  Jehovah " 
in  each  clause  of  ver.  1  forbids  the  assignment  of  both  or 
either  to  an  Elohist  writer  without  an  arbitrary  change 
of  text,  which,  instead  of  contributing  to  the  support  of 
the  hypothesis,  is  an  inference  from  the  hypothesis. 
Moreover,  this  verse  is  not  a  doublet,  as  the  critics  claim, 
suggestive  of  two  distinct  sources.     It  is  no  unmeaning 

'  Urgeschichte,  pp.  215,  224. 

2  Ilgen  accomplished  the  same  thing  after  a  fashion  by  giving  E  ver. 
la,  J  lb,  and  P  ver.  3. 


264  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

repetition,  but  an  emphatic  asseveration,  in  wliich  the 
second  clause  is  an  advance  upon  the  first.  It  is  first 
stated  that  Jehovah  visited  Sarah  as  he  had  said  (see 
xviii.  10) ;  then  the  purpose  for  which  he  visited  her  is 
added,  viz.,  to  fulfil  the  promise  previously  given.  The 
mention  of  a  divine  visitation  is  usually  followed  by  an 
explicit  statement  of  its  design ;  so  Gen.  1.  24 ;  Ex.  iii. 
16,  17 ;  xxxii.  34 ;  and  in  these  cases  no  one  suspects  dif- 
ferent writers.  Delitzsch  remarks  that  the  structure  of 
ver.  1  is  identical  with  that  of  ii.  5a. 

Wellhausen  denies  that  the  author  of  ch.  xviii.  could 
have  had  any  share  in  this  account  of  Isaac's  birth,  be- 
cause according  to  xviii.  10,  14,  Jehovah  promised  to  re- 
visit Sarah  in  Hebron  ;  but  the  fact  is  that  no  locality 
is  mentioned  there.  Dillmann  insists  that  according  to 
both  J  and  P  Isaac  must  have  been  born  in  Hebron,  as 
they  knew  nothing  of  the  journey  to  the  south  in  ch. 
XX.  (E) ;  a  discrepancy  which,  like  most  of  those  discov- 
ered by  the  critics,  is  of  their  own  manufacture,  and  does 
not  exist  in  the  text  as  it  lies  before  us. 

The  critics  are  here  in  a  dilemma  which  has  perplexed 
them  not  a  little.  If  ver.  2a  is  given  to  P  as  by  Dillmann 
(2nd),  J  makes  no  mention  of  Isaac's  birth,  which  is  the 
event  to  which  every  promise  from  ch.  xii.  onward  had 
pointed,  and  for  which  all  the  history  of  Abraham  up  to 
this  time  had  been  preparatory.  If  it  is  given  to  J  as  by 
Dillmann  (3rd),  P  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  naming  of  the 
child  and  his  circumcision  without  having  told  of  his  birth. 
And  even  if  "  Jehovah  "  in  ver.  lb  be  changed  to  "  Elohim  " 
to  accommodate  the  critics,  and  this  be  given  to  P,  he 
still  merely  says  that  God  fulfilled  his  promise  to  Sarah 
without  saying  what  that  promise  was.  It  is  easy  to  say 
that  Isaac's  birth  was  mentioned  in  both  documents,  but 
II  has  only  preserved  one  account  of  it.  But  there  is  no 
proof  that  such  a  duplicate  statement  ever  existed.     The 


THE   BIRTH   OF   ISAAC,    ETC.   (CH.    XXI.    1-31)      265 

critics'  assertion  that  it  did  brings  no  support  to  their 
hypothesis,  for  it  is  itself  unsupported,  and  is  a  mere  in- 
ference from  the  hypothesis  which  it  is  adduced  to  sus- 
tain. And  it  is  an  inference  which  imputes  the  most 
extraordinary  and  unaccountable  inconsistency  to  the  re- 
dactor. In  ver.  1  he  is  supposed  to  have  brought 
together  two  clauses  identical  in  signification,  one  or  the 
other  of  which  is  therefore  quite  superfluous,  because  he 
found  them  in  different  documents  and  felt  bound  to  re- 
tain them.  He  retains  xix.  29  from  P,  though  in  the 
opinion  of  the  critics  it  adds  nothing  to  what  he  had  al- 
ready related  in  full  from  J.  He  records  Noah's  entry 
into  the  ark  twice,  once  from  J  and  then  from  P,  thus 
overloading  his  narrative  in  these  and  other  conspicuous 
instances  with  identical  repetitions  for  no  other  reason 
than  because  the  same  thing  was  recorded  in  each  of  his 
sources.  Why  does  he  not  do  the  same  in  this  matter 
which  is  evidently  regarded  in  both  documents  as  of  the 
greatest  moment  ? 

"  Sarah  bore  a  son  at  the  set  time  of  which  God  had 
spoken  to  him  "  (ver.  2)  is  a  plain  allusion  to  xvii.  19a, 
21 ;  the  name  Isaac  (ver.  3)  to  xvii.  19  ;  his  being  circum- 
cised the  eighth  day  (ver.  4)  to  xvii.  12  ;  the  age  of  Abra- 
ham (ver.  5)  to  xvii.  1,  24.  The  repetition  of  "  Sarah " 
four  times  in  vs.  1-3,  and  the  reiteration  of  the  statement 
that  she  was  the  mother  of  the  child  are  not  due  to 
the  diffuse  style  of  the  writer,  but  to  the  emphasis  laid 
upon  the  fact,  as  in  ch.  xvii.  The  name  "  Elohim  "  (vs. 
2,  4,  6)  is  adopted  from  ch.  xvii.,  which  is  so  prominently 
referred  to.  The  promise  was  made  and  was  now  ful- 
filled by  Jehovah  in  the  character  of  God  Almighty  (xvii. 
1)  ;  the  event  was,  and  was  understood  by  both  Abraham 
and  Sarah  to  be,  not  the  product  of  natural  causes,  but 
of  divine  omnipotent  intervention. 

The  contention  that  ver.  6  contains  a  new  explanation 


266  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

of  the  name  of  Isaac,  or  as  Ilgen  and  Buclde  will  have  it, 
two  separate  explanations  of  it,  differing  from  those  in 
xvii.  17  P  and  xviii.  12  J,  and  that  it  must  on  this  ac- 
count be  referred  to  a  third  writer,  E,  is  unfounded. 
These  several  allusions  to  the  significance  of  the  name 
are  entirely  harmonious  and  are  not  suggestive  of  a  di- 
versity of  writers.  Abraham's  and  Sarah's  laugh  of  in- 
credulity is  exchanged  for  a  laugh  of  joy.  Nor  does  the 
additional  utterance  of  Sarah  (ver.  7),  though  distinct 
from  the  preceding  (ver.  6),  and  separately  introduced  by 
the  words  "  And  she  said,"  require  or  justify  the  as- 
sumption that  this  is  from  another  document  any  more 
than  the  three  utterances  of  the  angel  of  Jehovah  to 
Hagar  (xvi.  9-11),  which  few  of  the  critics  think  of  sun- 
dering. 

DIVISION  IMPOSSIBLE 

Hupfeld  claims  that  the  narrative  of  the  expulsion  of 
Hagar  and  Ishmael  (vs.  9-21),  which  is  assigned  to  E, 
stands  in  no  relation  to  the  account  of  Isaac's  birth, 
which  he  divides  between  J  and  P.  But  besides  the  ob- 
vious intimate  connection  between  the  two  events,  the 
narratives  are  bound  together  by  ver.  8,  which  Hupfeld 
correctly  attaches  to  what  precedes  as  its  proper  se- 
quence, and  other  critics  with  equal  propriety  attach  to 
what  follows  as  indicating  its  occasion.  It  was  at  the 
feast  to  celebrate  the  weaning  of  Isaac  that  Ishmael 
made  himself  so  obnoxious  as  to  be  sent  away. 

The  critics  allege  that  vs.  8-21  is  a  variant  of  xvi.  4-14 
by  a  different  writer,  but  without  the  slightest  reason. 
The  two  events  are  quite  distinct,  and  each  is  appropriate 
in  its  place.  In  ch.  xvi.  Hagar  was  treated  harshly  be- 
cause of  her  contemptuous  behavior  toward  her  mistress 
before  the  birth  of  Ishmael,  and  ran  away  of  her  own 
accord,  but  was  sent  back  by  an  angel.     In  this  place 


THE   BIRTH   OF   ISAAC,    ETC.    (CH.    XXI.    1-21)      267 

Hagar  and  Ishmael  were  finally  dismissed  by  Abraham, 
and  an  angel  appeared  to  succor  them  in  their  distress. 
.That  "  Jehovah  "  is  used  throughout  the  former  passage, 
and  "  Elohim  "  in  this,  is  due  not  to  a  difference  of 
writers  but  of  situation.  There  Hagar  was  regarded  as  a 
member  of  Abraham's  household,  and  as  such  still  under 
Jehovah's  protection.  Here  she  and  Ishmael  are  finally 
separated  from  the  patriarch  and  his  family,  and  are 
henceforth  disconnected  from  the  chosen  race.  Elohim 
is,  therefore,  used  with  Ishmael  as  with  Lot  after  he  was 
finally  cut  off  from  proximity  to,  and  all  connection  with, 
Abraham  (xix.  29  sqq.). 

The  attempt  to  create  a  discrepancy  in  respect  to  the 
age  of  Ishmael  is  not  successful.  It  is  claimed  that 
while  Ishmael,  according  to  xvi.  16 ;  xxi.  5,  was  at  least 
sixteen  years  old,  he  is  in  this  nan-ative  represented  as 
a  young  child  needing  to  be  carried.  Dillmann  effects 
this  result  by  accepting  the  erroneous  rendering  of  ver. 
14  by  the  LXX.  in  place  of  the  Hebrew  text,  as  Ilgen 
had  done  before  him,  and  reading  "  put  the  child  on  her 
shoulder,"  which,  according  to  the  text  as  it  stands,  was 
not  done.  This,  as  Jerome  long  since  remarked,  would 
bring  this  verse  into  variance  with  ver.  18,  where  Hagar 
is  bidden  to  lift  up  the  sick  boy  and  hold  him  with  her 
hand.  Ex  quo  manif estum  est,  eum  qui  tenetur  non  oneri 
matri  fuisse,  sed  comitem.  To  hold  him  by  the  hand  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  carrying  him. 

It  is  also  inconsistent  with  ver.  9,  where  pnst)  cannot 
denote  the  innocent  laughter  of  a  young  child.  It  is  in- 
conceivable that  the  writer  could  have  intended  to  charge 
Sarah  with  being  so  seriously  provoked  by  such  a  cause. 
It  must  mean  "  mocking,"  and  was  so  understood  (Gal. 
iv.  29) ;  but  this  is  the  act  of  a  boy  of  some  age.  See 
above,  No  Discrepancies,  No.  8,  page  166. 

Vater  remarks  upon  this  passage,  "  We  have  no  reason 


268  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

indeed  to  presuppose  a  conuection  in  the  accounts  of  dif- 
ferent fragments,  but  neither  have  we  any  reason  to  seek 
contradictions  where  there  are  none."  The  fragment 
hypothesis,  in  the  interest  of  which  Vater  wrote,  is  now 
universally  abandoned  in  consequence  of  the  abundant 
proofs  of  a  close  connection  between  all  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  which  it  persistently  denied.  But  the  preva- 
lent disposition  of  the  divisive  critics  "  to  seek  contradic- 
tions where  there  are  none,"  in  order  to  justify  their  as- 
sumption of  different  documents  is  really  destructive  of 
their  own  hypothesis ;  for  it  imputes  an  incredible  blind- 
ness to  the  redactor  who  could  combine  such  glaring 
contradictions  in  what  he  offers  to  his  readers  as  a  con- 
sistent and  credible  history. 

In  ver.  16  Hagar  is  said  to  have  lifted  up  her  voice  and 
wejDt.  Whereupon  it  is  immediately  added  (ver.  17), 
And  God  heard  the  voice  of  the  lad.  This  has  been  re- 
garded as  an  incongruity,  implying  a  diversity  of  writers 
(Knobel),  or  an  error  in  the  text  (LXX.,  the  child  lifted 
up  his  voice  and  wept).  But  every  writer  can  presume 
upon  the  intelligence  of  his  readers  to  supply  what  is  so 
evident  as  not  to  require  mention.  The  cries  of  the  child 
were  natural  under  the  circumstances,  and  are  here  im- 
plied, though  not  expressly  stated.  And  as  Dillmann 
suggests,  the  repetifedou  of  the  words,  "  she  sat  over  against 
him"  (ver.  16b),  can  only  be  for  the  purpose  of  intro- 
ducing a  clause  of  which  Hagar  is  the  subject. 

Dillmann  observes  that  the  name  of  the  child  is  not 
mentioned  throughout  the  paragraph  (vs.  9-21),  and  con- 
jectures that  E  must  have  said  after  vs.  17,  18,  that  the 
child  was  called  Ishmael  God  hears,  because  God  had 
then  heard  his  voice ;  and  that  K  omitted  it.  It  is  re- 
markable how  often  the  divisive  hypothesis  leads  the 
critics  to  the  belief  that  something  ought  to  be  in  the 
text  which  is  not  there.     There  has  been  no  omission 


THE   BIRTH   OF   ISAAC,    ETC.    (CH.   XXI.   1-21)       269 

here.  The  name  does  not  occur  in  vs.  19-21  any  more 
than  in  the  preceding  verses.  The  naming  of  the  child 
and  the  reason  of  it  had  aheady  been  stated  (xvi.  11, 15) ; 
and  the  allusion  to  its  signification  (xxi.  17),  like  that  in 
xvii.  20,  is  suggestive  not  of  different  writers  but  rather 
of  all  emanating  from  one  common  source. 

MAEKS   OF  P 

Dillmann  assigns  to  P,  vs.  lb,  2b-5,  "on  account  of  the 
back  reference  of  vs.  2b  and  4  toch.  xvii.,"  which  is  freely 
admitted ;  "  the  statement  of  age,  ver.  4,"  but  see  ch.  xii. 
1-9,  Marks  of  P  No.  (5) ;  "  the  diffuseness,  ver.  3,"  there 
is  here,  however,  no  needless  superfluity  of  words,  but 
only  emphatic  repetition,  as  above  explained,  and  but 
one  instance  of  alleged  characteristic  diction,  viz.  : 

1.  "The  form  n5?)2  ver.  5,"  the  construct  state  of  ni5'ja 
a  hundred.  The  fact  is  that  both  forms  of  this  numeral 
occur  repeatedly  in  passages  assigned  to  P,  to  which,  as 
a  rule,  statements  of  age  and  enumerations  are  attributed. 
This  number  occurs  in  J  but  twice,  vi.  3  (120  years),  xxvi. 
12  (100  measures),  and  in  E  of  but  three  things,  Joseph's 
age,  1.  22,  26  (110  years),  Joshua's  age.  Josh.  xxiv.  29 
(110  years),  and  the  price  of  a  field  at  Shechem,  Gen. 
xxxiii.  19  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  32  (100  kesitas) ;  in  each  of  these 
cases  the  absolute  form  ns^  chances  to  be  used.  But 
the  same  form  is  also  found  in  like  cases  in  P,  e.g.,  Gen. 
xvii.  17  (100  years) ;  xxiii,  1  (127  years) ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  7 
(120  years),  and  in  a  large  proportion  of  those  instances 
in  which  the  numeral  is  attached  to  weights  or  measures. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  reason,  therefore,  for  assuming 
a  diversity  of  usage  in  respect  to  this  word. 

MAEKS   OF   J 

Dillmann  says,  "  J,  too,  as  is  natural,  narrated  the  birth 
of  Isaac  in  what  he  wrote,  but  E  has  adopted  nothing 


270  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   TEKAH 

from  his  account  except  vs.  la,  2a,  7 ;  at  least  it  is  quite 
inconceivable  that  ver.  la  could  have  been  added  along- 
side of  lb  by  E  of  his  own  motion  and  without  finding  it 
in  J ;  in  vs.  2b  and  7  T^JpTb  in  his  old  age,  points  to  J, 
and  ver.  7  is  a  doublet  of  ver.  6."  He  also  urges  the 
back  reference  in  ver.  la  to  xviii.  10  sqq.  (which  is  not 
disputed),  and  that  ^ps  visited  is  decisive  against  the  au- 
thorship of  P,  who  says  instead  nDT  remembered. 

But  it  has  been  shown  above  that  there  is  no  super- 
fluous repetition  in  ver.  1 ;  and  that  there  is  no  reason 
for  assuming  that  vs.  6  and  7  are  by  different  writers. 
And  the  words  here  adduced  supply  no  argument  for 
critical  partition. 

1.  1|?s  visited  (ver.  1),  occurs  in  this  sense  besides  in 
E  (L  24^  25  ;  Ex.  iii.  16  ;  iv.  31 ;  xiii.  19  ;  xx.  5  ;  Num. 
xvi.  29) ;  in  E  (Num.  xiv.  18)  ;  in  J  (Ex.  xxxii.  34 ;  xxxiv. 
7 ;  and,  according  to  Dillmann,  Lev.  xviii.  25).  It  is 
not  easy  to  see  on  what  grounds  this  last  verse  is  denied 
to  P.  It  stands  in  what  he  considers  a  mixed  passage  of 
J  and  P,  and  betAveen  two  verses  which  he  gives  to  P, 
and  why  it  is  separated  from  them  does  not  appear. 
And  13T  remembered  (said  of  God),  is  not  an  expression 
peculiar  to  P.  It  occurs  in  verses  attributed  to  P  (Gen. 
viii.  1  ;  ix.  15, 16  ;  xix.  29  ;  xxx.  22 ;  Ex.  ii.  24 ;  vi.  5) ;  but 
also  in  J  (Ex.  xxxii.  13  ;  Lev.  xxvi.  42,  45,  so  Dillmann). 
And  in  Gen.  xxx.  22  the  clause  containing  it  is  cut  out  of 
a  J  and  E  connection  on  account  of  this  word  alone. 

2.  D'^SpT  old  age  (vs.  2,  7),  occurs  but  twice  besides, 
viz.,  xliv.  20  J,  and  xxxvii.  3,  about  which  critics  are  di- 
vided :  Knobel  gives  it  to  P ;  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen 
to  E  ;  and  Dillmann  to  J. 

MAEKS   OF   E 

To  E  is  assigned  vs.  6,  8-21,  and  it  is  contended  that 
"  in  spite  of  Elohim   this  is  not  from  P,  whom  the  ap- 


THE  BIRTH   OF   ISAAC,    ETC.    (CH.  XXI.  1-21)       271 

pearance  of  the  divine  angel  (ver.  17)  does  not  suit."  The 
reason  of  the  absence  of  angels  from  P  is  that  the  critical 
lines  of  partition  exclude  this  document  from  the  body  of 
the  narrative,  and  the  occurrence  of  the  word  '  angel '  in 
a  paragraph  is  held  to  be  sufficient  to  prove  that  it  is  not 
from  P.  " Nor  the  explanation  of  the  name  of  Isaac;" 
but  this  has  already  been  shown  to  be  consistent  with 
that  of  ch.  xvii.  "  Nor  the  sending  away  of  Hagar  and 
Ishmael ;  "  it  is  alleged  that  this  is  inconsistent  with  the 
presence  of  Ishmael  at  his  father's  burial  (xxv.  9  P). 
But  it  is  manifest  that  he  might  easily  return  on  such  an 
occasion  and  for  such  a  purpose.  It  is  besides  expressly 
stated  in  that  immediate  connection  (xxv.  6)  that  all  the 
sons  of  Abraham's  concubines  were  thus  dismissed  dur- 
ing his  lifetime.  And  whatever  disposition  the  critics 
may  choose  to  make  of  this  verse,  the  redactor  must 
have  thought  it  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  statement  im- 
mediately after,  that  "  his  sons  Isaac  and  Ishmael  buried 
him."  "  Nor  the  age  of  Ishmael  at  the  time  ;  "  but  it 
has  been  shown  that  there  is  no  discrepancy  in  regard 
to  it.  "  Expressions  like  God  loas  loifh  him  (ver.  20), 
hearken  unto  the  voice  of  (yex.  12),  rose  up  early  in  the 
morning  (ver.  14),  it  was  grievous  in  his  eyes  (vs.  11,  12), 
Ona  cast  out  (ver.  10),  *ib;;  child  (vs.  8,  14  sqq.),  are  for- 
eign to  P."  The  simple  explanation  of  the  absence  of 
these  and  other  familiar  words  and  phrases  from  P  is 
that  only  the  most  stinted  share  in  the  narrative  por- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch  is  accorded  to  P,  while  the  great 
bulk  of  it  is  divided  between  J  and  E.  And  these 
expressions  are  as  freely  used  in  J  as  in  E.  They 
are  not  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  any  one  writer,  but 
are  the  common  possession  of  all  who  use  the  lan- 
guage. 

1.   God  loas  idth  him  (ver.  20)  ;  in  J  (xxvi.  24,  28 ; 
xxviii.  15 ;  xxxix.  2,  21). 


272  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

2.  bipa  VQUi  hearken  unto  the  voice  of  {ver.  12);  in  J 
(xxvii.  8,  43 ;  Ex.  iv.  1  ;  Num.  xxi.  3). 

3.  Ipiia  D'^lSTCn  rose  up  early  in  the  morning  (ver.  14). 
See  cli.  xviii.  1— xix.  28,  Marks  of  J,  No.  26. 

4.  "'T'Vlk  yyn  to  he  grievous  in  the  eyes  (vs.  11,  12)  ;  in 
J  (xxxviii.  7,  10;  xlviii.  17;  Num.  xxii.  34;  xxxii.  13); 
and  once  in  P  (Gen.  xxviii.  8). 

5.  t")^  cast  out  (ver.  10) ;  in  J  (iii.  24 ;  iv.  14  ;  Ex.  ii. 
17 ;  xii.  39  ;  xxxiv.  11 ;  Lev.  xxi.  7,  14  (so  Dillmann)  ; 
Num.  xxii.  11). 

6.  'ib^  child  (vs.  8,  14  sqq.)  ;  in  J  (iv.  23 ;  xxxii.  23, 
E.  Y.  ver.  22;  xxxiii.  1  sqq.;  xliv.  20).  It  is  noticeable 
that  'lb';'  child,  and  nys  lad,  are  here  used  interchangea- 
bly of  Ishmael ;  the  former,  vs.  14,  15,  16 ;  the  latter,  vs. 
12,  17  bis,  18,  19,  20.  Knobel  regarded  the  former  as 
the  language  of  J,  and  the  latter  as  that  of  the  older 
source  from  which  he  sujjposed  him  to  have  drawn  this 
narrative.  On  the  assumption  of  this  double  authorship 
he  likewise  explained  the  twofold  mention  of  Ishmael's 
abode  in  vs.  20  and  21.  Other  critics  refer  the  whole  of 
vs.  8-21  to  E,  and  thus  admit  that  the  use  of  two  differ- 
ent terms  to  express  the  same  thing  is  not  necessarily  an 
indication  of  different  writers.  The  doublet  in  vs.  20, 
21,  is  also  passed  over  in  silence  as  void  of  significance,^ 

It  is  argued  that  this  paragraph  must  be  referred  to  an 
author  distinct  from  J  on  account  of  "  the  divine  name  ;  " 
but  it  has  been  shown  that  the  employment  of  Eloliim 
here  accords  with  biblical  usage.  "  The  variant  explana- 
tion of  the  name  of  Isaac,  ver.  6 ; "  but  this  has  been 
shown  to  be  in  harmony  with  xviii.  12,  13,  as  w^ell  as 
xvii.  17,  19.  "  And  above  all,  that  vs.  9-21  is  a  variant 
of  the  story  about  Hagar  and  Ishmael  told  by  J  in  ch. 

'  Hupfeld  (Quellen,  p.  30)  doubtfully  conjectures  that  ver.  21  belongs 
to  P,  and  has  been  transferred  by  R  from  its  original  position  after  xxv. 
12.     I  am  not  aware  that  any  other  critic  has  adopted  this  view. 


ABRAHAM   AT   BEERSHEBA    (CH.    XXI.   22-34)       273 

xvi,;  "  but  tliis  is  not  the  case  ;  they  are  distinct  occur- 
rences. The  additional  proofs  offered  for  its  reference 
to  a  writer  E,  distinct  from  J  and  P,  are  equally  nugatory. 
These  are  : 

7.  "  The  locality  in  the  Neghebh  (South),  cf.  xx.  1 ; " 
but  ver.  33  J,  Abraham  is  in  that  region,  of  which  the 
paragraphs  assigned  to  E  afford  the  only  explanation. 

8.  rran  bottle  vs.  14,  15, 19 ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch ;  but  once  besides  in  the  Old  Testament. 

9.  nn'J  to  shoot  (ver.  16) ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

10.  mrj?  nan  archer  (ver.  20) ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Old 
Testament.  This  is,  moreover,  a  needless  departure  both 
from  the  Massoretic  points  and  the  usual  meaning  of  the 
words.     The  text  has  tW^  nih  as  he  greio  up,  an  archer. 

11.  rras  maid-servant  (vs.  10,  12,  13).  See  ch.  xx., 
Marks  of  E,  No.  1.  Hagar,  who  had  been  Sarah's  bond- 
maid, nnS'p,  is  now,  as  Abraham's  concubine,  regarded  as 
in  a  less  servile  position,  and  is  hence  called  an  rraii. 
See  Diction  of  ch.  xx..  No.  14. 

12.  liljb  D^iC  mahe  a  nation  (vs.  13,  18) ;  only  besides  in 
the  Hexateuch  xlvi.  3,  referred  by  Dillmann  to  E,  but  by 
Kautzsch  to  R  ;  the  same  construction  occurs  in  J  xlvii. 
26,  pnb  Dito  make  a  statute. 

13.  pnnn  afar  off  (ver.  16) ;  also  in  J  (Ex.  viii.  24,  E. 
V.  ver.  28).' 

14.  n'lis  by  0)1  account  of  (ver.  11) ;  also  in  J  (xxvi. 
32) ;  in  Josh.  xiv.  6  it  occurs  in  the  same  clause  with  an 
expression  of  P ;  apart  from  Gen.  xxi.  it  occurs  in  but 
three  passages  that  are  referred  to  E  (Ex.  xviii.  8 ;  Num. 
xii.  1 ;  xiii.  24). 

ABRAHAM   AT   BEERSHEBA   (CH.  XXI.  22-34) 

This  paragraph  records  the  covenant  between  Abime- 
lech  and  Abraham  at  Beersheba.     Hupfeld  here  gives  vs. 
18 


274  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAn 

22-32  to  E,  and  vs.  33,  34  to  J,  because  of  Elohim  in  vs. 
22,  23,  and  Jehovah  in  ver.  33.  But  ver.  33  cannot  be 
separated  from  what  precedes  ;  for  the  subject  of  the 
verbs  in  this  verse  is  not  expressed  and  must  be  derived 
from  the  foregoing  verses,  and  Abraham's  presence  in 
Beersheba  is  not  explained  by  anything  that  has  pre- 
ceded in  J,  but  only  by  the  antecedent  narrative,  which 
is  attributed  to  a  different  document.  Kayser  seeks  to 
evade  these  difficulties  by  assuming  that  E's  narrative 
was  inserted  by  J  in  his  document,  to  which  he  then  at- 
taches vs.  33,  34.  But  this  has  found  no  favor  with  other 
critics,  because  it  annuls  their  chief  argument  for  a  writer 
E  in  this  passage  distinct  from  J,  viz.,  that  derived  from 
the  alleged  J  parallel  in  xxvi.  26-33.  Wellhausen  tries 
to  compass  the  same  end  in  a  different  way,  but  one 
equall}^  ineffectual.  He  gives  ver,  33  to  E;  but  this 
makes  it  necessary  for  him  to  alter  the  text  by  expunging 
the  name  "  Jehovah,"  and  even  then  the  phrase  "  call  on 
the  name  "  of  God  remains,  which  is  a  stereotype  J  ex- 
pression. Hupfeld  insists  that  ver.  34  contradicts  ver. 
32,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  assigned  to  the  same  author. 
In  ver.  34  Beersheba  was  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines ; 
in  ver.  32  it  was  not.  He  struggles  to  overcome  the 
difficulties  of  the  situation  by  still  another  method,  that 
of  transposing  the  text.  He  transfers  xxii.  19b,  "  And 
Abraham  dwelt,"  or,  as  he  renders  it,  "  settled  in  Beer- 
sheba," to  this  place,  thus  accounting  for  J's  speaking 
of  him  as  in  this  locality.  He  then  transposes  ver.  33 
with  ver,  34,  and  so  finds  a  subject  for  the  verbs  in 
the  former.  The  arbitrary  character  of  these  changes  of 
the  text,  for  which  no  reason  can  be  given  except  the  ex- 
igencies of  the  hypothesis,  sufficiently  condemns  them. 

Wellhausen  fancies  that  he  discovers  a  discrepancy 
between  ver.  22  and  ver.  32b,  in  virtue  of  which  he 
claims  that  the  latter  cannot  be  by  the  author  of  the  pre- 


ABRAHAM   AT  BEERSHEBA   (CH.   XXI.   22-34)        275 

ceding  narrative,  but  must  be  attributed  to  R.  In  ver. 
32b  Abimelech  dwelt  at  some  distance  from  Abraham  ; 
in  ver.  22  they  lived  presumably  in  the  same  place,  for 
they  held  an  interview  without  anything  being  said  of 
Abimelech's  having  come  away  from  home  for  this  pur- 
j)ose.  As  if  the  reader  had  not  already  been  informed 
(xx.  2)  that  the  royal  residence  was  at  Gerar,  while  this 
transaction  is  expressly  said  to  have  taken  place  at  Beer- 
sheba  (ver.  31).  And  in  numberless  instances  facts  are 
implied  without  being  expressly  mentioned.  God  healed 
Abimelech  and  his  wife  and  his  maid-servants  (xx.  17), 
though  it  had  not  been  previously  stated  that  the}^  were 
sick.  God  heard  the  voice  of  Ishmael  (xxi.  17),  though 
it  had  not  been  before  said  that  he  had  made  a  sound. 
It  is  implied  (ver.  25),  though  not  explicitly  declared, 
that  Abimelech  restored  the  well  to  Abraham  which  his 
servants  had  violently  taken  away. 

Dillmann  gives  both  ver.  32b  and  ver.  34  to  E,  thus 
disregarding  Hupfeld's  notion  that  they  are  mutually  in- 
consistent and  must  be  referred  to  distinct  sources.  The 
occurrence  of  the  expression  "  land  of  the  Philistines  " 
in  these  verses,  which  is  not  found  before  in  ch.  xx.  or 
xxi.,  is  no  reason  for  sundering  them  from  the  preceding 
narrative;  for  Gerar,  where  Abimelech  resided,  and  of 
which  he  was  king  (xx.  2),  was  a  Philistine  city  (xxvi.  1). 
It  was  quite  natural,  therefore,  to  speak  of  Abimelech's 
return  to  Gerar  as  a  return  to  the  land  of  the  Philistines. 
And  as  Beersheba  lay  in  the  same  region  it  could  also 
be  described  as  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines. 

Dillmann  had  a  more  controlling  reason,  however,  than 
these  superficial  trifles,  for  referring  ver.  34  to  R.  It 
is  evidently  preparatory  for  ch.  xxii.  Abraham's  long 
sojourn  there  explains  how  Isaac,  whose  birth  is  recorded 
xxi.  2,  could  be  spoken  of  as  he  is  in  xxii.  6.  But  it 
would  conflict  with  the  hypothesis  to  allow  a  verse  of 


276  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

J  to  be  introductory  to  a  narrative  of  E.  Hence  it  is 
cut  out  of  its  connection  and  attributed  to  R.  But  the 
actual  and  obvious  fact  is  that  this  verse  is  a  link  of  con- 
nection, binding  together  what  precedes  and  what  follows 
as  the  product  of  the  same  pen. 

The  divine  names  in  this  paragraph  are  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  ordinary  Bible  usage,  and  supply  no  rea- 
son for  suspecting  a  diversity  of  documents.  Thus  we 
find  Elohim  in  the  interview  with  the  Gentile  ting, 
Abimelech ;  but  when  Abraham  oifers  worship  he  calls 
on  the  name  of  Jehovah. 

MAEKS   OP  E 

It  is  alleged  that  the  diction  is  not  that  of  P,  which, 
considering  the  slight  amount  of  narrative  given  to  that 
document,  is  not  surprising.  But  the  words  adduced  in 
proof  are  all  found  in  J. 

1.  ^pn  nicy  shoio  kindness  (ver.  23).  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix., 
Marks'of  J,  No.  29. 

2.  ni'ia  rrns  make  a  covenant  (vs.  27,  32).  See  ch.  vi.- 
ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  16. 

3.  "1^153  in  order  that  (ver.  30)  ;  in  J  (iii.  17 ;  viii.  21 ; 
xii.  13, 16 ;  xviii.  26,  29,  31,  32 ;  xxvi.  24 ;  xlvi.  34 ;  Ex.  xiii. 
8) ;  in  E  (Ex.  xix.  9) ;  JE  (Gen.  xxvii.  4, 10, 19,  31 ;  Ex.  xx. 
20  bis) ;  R  (Ex.  ix.  14,  16  bis).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of 
J,  No.  6;  ch.  xii.  10-20,  Marks  of  J,  No.  5. 

4.  ir\b3  except  (ver.  26).  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  14^' 

5.  nsn  here  (ver.  23) ;  in  J  (xlv.  5,  13  ;  Josh.  viii.  20) ; 
in  E  (Gen.  xlii.  15  ;  xlv.  8 ;  Josh,  xviii.  6) ;  JE  (Josh.  ii. 
2 ;  iii.  9  ;  R  (Gen.  xv.  16). 

6.  Elohim  (vs.  22,  23) ;  explained  above. 

7.  n'^Din  reproved  (ver.  25) ;  in  J  (xxiv.  14,  44  ;  Lev. 
six.  17,  so  Dillmann) ;  in  E  (Gen.  xx.  16  ;  xxxi.  37,  42 ). 


SACHIFICE   OF   ISAAC    (CH.    XXII.   1-19)  277 

8.  God  is  toith  thee  (ver.  22).  See  cli.  xxi.  1-21,  Marks 
of  E,  No.  1. 

9.  nnii!  b:^  because  of  (ver.  25).  See  cb.  xxi.  1-21, 
Marks  of  E,  No.  14. 

10.  1d;i  ^id  offspring  and  'posterity  (ver.  23) ;  neither 
word  occurs  again  in  the  Hexateuch ;  they  are  found  but 
twice  besides  in  the  Old  Testament,  viz..  Job  xviii.  19 ; 
Isa.  xiv.  22. 

"  The  connection  "  of  this  paragraph  "with  ch.  xx.  in 
respect  of  place  and  persons  "  is  freely  admitted ;  but 
there  is  in  this  no  argument  for  critical  partition.  Nor 
does  the  similar  occurrence  in  the  life  of  Isaac  (xxvi. 
26-33)  warrant  the  inference  that  these  are  variant  ac- 
counts of  the  same  transaction  recorded  by  different 
writers. 

The  statement  "  they  made  a  covenant  "  (ver.  27b),  is 
repeated  (ver.  32a),  but  no  critic  suspects  a  doublet  or 
assigns  them  to  distinct  documents. 

SACRIFICE   OF  ISAAC   (CH.   XXII.    1-19) 

The  narrative  of  the  offering  up  of  Isaac  is  closely 
linked  together  in  every  part.  It  is  identical  throughout 
in  style  and  language ;  it  is  an  appropriate  sequel  to  all 
that  has  gone  before.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for 
partitioning  this  passage  between  different  writers  except 
the  occurrence  in  it  of  both  Elohim  and  Jehovah.  This 
is  accordingly  made  the  ground  of  critical  severance  ;  and 
yet  these  divine  names  interpose  an  obstacle  to  division 
which  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  remove.  The 
names,  which  are  the  only  pretext  for  division,  must  first 
be  altered  into  conformity  with  the  critical  scheme  be- 
fore any  division  is  practicable.  -The  mechanical  theory, 
which  undertakes  to  account  for  the  alternation  of  these 
names  by  the  peculiar  habit  of   different  writers,  and 


278  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TEKAH 

which  loses  sight  of  the  distinctive  meaning  and  usage  of 
the  names  themselves,  is  here  completely  baffled. 

THE   CKITICAL   PARTITION 

The  first  attempt  at  division  was  that  of  Astruc  and 
Eichhorn,  who  assigned  vs.  1-10  to  the  Elohist,  and  vs. 
11-19  to  the  Jehovist ;  which  made  it  necessary  to  as- 
sume that  Elohim  (ver.  12)  had  been  altered  from  Je- 
hovah.' 

But  the  Elohist  account  cannot  end  with  ver.  10, 
where  Abraham  takes  the  knife  to  slay  his  son.  The  ac- 
tion is  thus  broken  ofl"  in  the  midst,  and  the  verses  that 
follow  are  needed  to  complete  it.  These  following  verses 
are  also  linked  to  what  precedes  by  the  expressions  used  : 
"  Now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God  "  (ver.  12)  states 
the  result  of  the  trial  (ver.  1).  "Thy  son,  thine  only 
son  "  (ver.  12),  repeats  the  identical  language  of  ver.  2. 
And  ver.  19,  "  Abraham  returned  to  his  young  men,"  is 
an  express  allusion  to  his  j)romise  made  to  them  (ver.  5). 

Accordingly  Tuch  proposed  to  give  the  Elohist  vs.  1- 
13,  19,  and  to  the  Jehovist  vs.  14-18.  Hupfeld  (Quel- 
len,  p.  55)  adopts  the  same  division  ;  only  he  insists  that 
the  Elohist  of  this  chapter,  as  of  ch.  xx.,  xxi.,  is  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Elohist  of  the  earlier  chapters  of 
Genesis.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  subsequent  critics 
who  agree  that  it  is  E  and  not  P.  Elohim  is  here  found 
in  connection  with  the  diction  and  style  of  J,  with  the 

'  Ewald,  Komposition  d.  Genesis,  pp.  74,  75,  shows  in  detail  that  the 
divine  names  are  in  each  instance  appropriately  chosen,  and  remarks 
that  the  adherents  of  the  divisive  hypothesis  have  a  much  more  diffi- 
cult task  to  perform  in  rending  asunder  what  is  so  closely  knit  together. 
He  then  proceeds  to  say,  "  Nevertheless  two  different  writers  are  assumed 
forno  other  reason  than  the  constraint  of  the  divine  names.  And  as  even 
thus  the  word  Elohim  (ver.  12)  still  makes  difficulty,  it  must  fall 
under  the  rigor  of  consistent  criticism  to  make  way  for  another  name." 


SACBIFICE   OF   ISAAC    (CII.    XXII.    1-19)  279 

mention  of  sacrifice,  and  with  "  refined  and  profound  " 
religious  ideas,  "  like  the  profound  theological  passage  on 
the  origin  of  sin  and  evil  ch.  ii.,  iii."  Thus  it  threat- 
ened to  annihilate  every  distinction  between  P  and  J, 
which  the  critics  have  been  at  such  pains  to  establish,  and 
to  destroy  the  very  foundations  of  the  divisive  hypothe- 
sis. The  suggestion  of  a  second  Elohist  was,  therefore, 
eagerly  Avelcomed  as  the  only  mode  of  averting  so  dire 
a  catastrophe. 

But  whether  it  be  P  or  E,  the  divine  names  still  prove 
refractory,  and  will  not  fit  into  the  improved  division. 
Jehovah  (ver.  11)  must,  in  spite  of  the  exact  parallel  in 
ver.  15,  be  converted  into  Elohim.  It  is  also  necessary 
to  get  rid  of  "  Moriah,"  the  manifestation  or  ajjpeai^ing 
of  Jehovah  (ver.  2),  a  proper  name,  of  which  Jehovah  is 
one  of  the  constituents.  Tuch  proposes  to  substitute  for 
it  "  the  land  of  Moreh,"  in  the  neighborhood  of  Shechem 
(xii.  6).  Wellhausen  objects  that  "  Moreh  "  was  not  a 
land,  but  a  place,  and  conjectures  instead  "  land  of  the 
Hamorites"  (a  designation  of  his  own  manufacture), 
"  where  Shechem  lay  "  (see  xxxiii.  18, 19),  and  pleads  the 
Samaritan  tradition  that  Mount  Gerizim  was  the  scene  of 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac.^  Dillmann  shows  that  Shechem  was 
too  remote,^  and  offers  another  equally  unfounded  con- 
jectural emendation,  "land  of  the  Amorite."  But  the 
text  is  in  no  need  of  correction.  It  is  only  the  perplex- 
ity of  the  critics  which  demands  it,  in  order  to  bring  it 
into  conformity  with  their  hypothesis. 

'  Stade  calls  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  "  a  Shechemite  saga,"  Geschichte 
Israel,  page  583. 

2  According  to  Robinson's  itinerary  Shechem  was  thirty-six  hours 
forty-five  minutes  distant  from  Beersheba,  and  could  not  have  been 
reached  on  the  third  day  (ver.  4),  as  Abraham  had  all  his  preparations 
to  make  before  starting.  The  distance  to  Mount  Moriah  was  twenty- 
two  hours  fifteen  minutes,  which  corresponds  to  the  requirements  of 
the  narrative. 


280  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

"  Moriah  "  in  all  probability  took  its  name  from  this 
incident  in  the  life  of  Abraham.  In  later  times  David 
selected  it  to  be  the  site  of  the  future  temple,  because  of 
a  divine  manifestation  made  to  him  upon  this  same  spot 
(2  Chron.  iii.  1).  There  is  a  congruity  in  this  coinci- 
dence that  was  no  doubt  in  the  divine  intention  when 
Abraham  was  directed  to  this  particular  summit,  which 
was  in  after  ages  to  be  the  appointed  place  of  sacrifice, 
and  which  was  in  close  proximity  to  the  place  where,  in 
the  fulness  of  time,  the  one  effectual  sacrifice  here  prefig- 
ured of  God's  own  and  only  Son  was  to  be  offered.  But 
this  chapter  gives  us  no  reason  to  suppose  that  its  au- 
thor was  aware  that  the  mountain  thus  hallowed  by  the 
angelic  appearance  was  to  gather  additional  sacredness 
whether  from  the  erection  of  the  temple  or  from  the  sub- 
lime transaction  on  Calvary.  Much  less  is  there  the 
slightest  ground  for  assuming  that  after  the  temple  had 
been  built  the  word  "  Moriah "  was  inserted  into  the 
text  of  this  chapter  in  order  to  connect  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac  with  the  temple  mountain.  This  is  certified  to  be 
the  true  original  reading  by  ver.  8,  where  "  God  will  pro- 
vide "  is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  name.  It  is  used  by 
prolepsis  in  ver.  2,  as  Horeb  is  called  "  the  mountain  of 
God  "  (Ex.  iii.  1),  because  of  the  divine  descent  upon  it 
at  the  subsequent  giving  of  the  law.  If  a  later  writer 
had  meant  to  identify  the  scene  of  Abraham's  trial  with 
the  location  of  the  temple,  he  would  doubtless  have  used 
the  Avord  "  Zion,"  in  which  it  was  comprehended,  and 
which  was  its  ordinary  name.  The  indefiniteness  of  the 
language  in  ver.  2  is  also  observable.  The  mountain  was 
not  known  to  Abraham,  but  would  be  pointed  out  to  him. 
And  the  name  "  Moriah  "  is  applied  not  only  to  the  sum- 
mit, but  to  the  region  in  which  it  stood.  There  is  no 
subsequent  trace  of  such  a  usage. 

"  Moriah  "  (ver.  2)  and  "  God  will  provide  "  (ver.  8)  in- 


SACRIFICE   OF   ISAAC    (CH.   XXII.    1-19)  281 

evitably  cany  with  them  ver.  14,  whose  hist  clause,  "  in 
the  mount  where  Jehovah  appears,"  gives  the  explana- 
tion of  the  name,  and  to  whose  allusive  "  Jehovah-jireh," 
Jehovah  luill  provide,  ver.  8  is  preparatory.  This  verse 
must  accordingly  be  attached  to  the  preceding.  Dr. 
Driver  admits  this  by  assigning  to  E  vs.  1-14,  19,  in 
spite  of  the  twice  repeated  "  Jehovah  "  in  ver.  14.  "  Je- 
hovah "  occurs  six  times  in  this  chapter,  either  separate- 
ly or  in  composition.  If  with  Dr.  Driver's  assent  four  of 
these  are  given  to  E,  how  can  the  other  two  supply  an 
argument  for  separating  vs.  15-18  from  the  rest  of  the 
chapter  and  giving  them  to  a  different  document  ? 

Moreover,  vs.  15-18  are  inseparable  from  what  pre- 
cedes. "  The  second  time  "  (ver.  15),  which  the  critics 
arbitrarily  erase,  is  an  explicit  reference  to  ver.  11.  "  The 
angel  of  Jehovah  "  is  introduced  in  both  verses  in  identi- 
cal terms.  "  Thou  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only 
son "  (ver.  12),  recurs  again  ver.  16  (see  also  ver.  2). 
And  these  closing  verses  are  essential  to  the  narrative 
and  an  indispensable  part  of  it,  since  without  them  it  is 
not  brought  to  a  fitting  termination.  At  every  crisis  in 
his  life,  and  especially  after  every  marked  exercise  of 
faith,  a  blessing  is  freshly  pronounced  upon  Abraham. 
When  in  obedience  to  the  divine  command  he  left  his 
home  and  kindred  and  came  to  Canaan,  Jehovah  ap- 
peared to  him  and  promised  him  this  land  (xii.  7).  After 
he  had  shown  his  generosity  in  parting  from  Lot,  the 
same  promise  was  renewed  in  fuller  form  (xiii,  14-17). 
After  his  brave  rescue  of  Lot  from  a  pillaging  foe,  he 
was  blessed  of  Melchizedek  (xiv.  19,  20).  His  faith  in 
Jehovah's  promise  of  seed,  made  to  him  in  his  despond- 
ency (xv.  6),  is  rewarded  by  a  covenant  engagement  (vs. 
18-21).  When  confiding  in  God's  assurance  that  the 
long-delayed  promise  should  be  fulfilled  at  the  set  time 
in  the  next  year,  he  accepted  the  rite  of  circumcision  (ch. 


282  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

svii.),  Jehovah  visited  him  in  his  tent  on  the  most  confi- 
dential terms  (ch.  xviii.).  And  it  would  be  most  extraor- 
dinary if  the  most  conspicuous  manifestation  of  his  faith 
and  obedience,  put  to  the  severest  test,  and  this  trium- 
phantly borne,  were  to  pass  without  signal  recognition 
and  reward.  The  situation  calls  for  just  what  we  actu- 
ally find  in  vs.  15-18,  a  renewal  of  the  promises  in  their 
amplest  form,  Jehovah  by  a  voice  from  heaven  confirm- 
ing them  by  the  added  solemnity  of  an  oath. 

The  question  here  arises  how  and  by  whom  the  differ- 
ent constituents,  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  critics  are 
here  combined,  have  been  put  together  in  their  present 
form.  According  to  the  fundamental  assumptions  of 
the  critical  hypothesis  E  could  not  have  used  the  name 
"Jehovah."  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  suppose  that 
the  portion  assigned  to  him  is  not  now  as  he  must  have 
written  it,  but  has  been  altered  by  another.  Noldeke 
infers  that  E  has  both  here  and  elsewhere  been  worked 
over  by  J.  But  this  would  annul  one  of  the  chief  argu- 
ments for  the  existence  of  E  distinct  from  J,  based  upon 
alleged  discrepancies  between  their  respective  narratives ; 
and  Wellhausen  interposes  an  objection  on  this  ground. 
Dillmann  adds  that  if  J  had  made  these  alterations  in  E, 
he  would  not  have  suffered  Elohim  to  remain.  In  the  ear- 
liest edition  of  his  "  Commentary  "  Dillmann  maintained 
that  there  were  two  independent  accounts  of  this  trans- 
action by  E  and  by  J,  and  that  R  incorporated  into  E's 
account  from  that  of  J  the  mention  of  Moriah,  the  name 
Jehovah,  and  the  added  verses  at  the  end.  But  the 
author  of  these  closing  verses  must  have  had  those  that 
precede  before  him,  for  there  are  identical  expressions  in 
both.  In  subsequent  editions  Dillmann  receded  from 
this  position  and  insisted  that  the  changes  and  additions 
are  to  be  ascribed  to  R,  and  were  made  by  him  of  his 
own  motion  and  not  borrowed  from  an  antecedent  source. 


SACKIFICE    OF    ISAAC    (CH.    XXII.    1-19)  283 

But  then  what  R  has  inserted  is  indistinguishable  from 
J  in  matter  and  style ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  what  E 
has  written,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  divine  names. 
So  that  it  might  appear  as  though  the  agnostic  position 
long  ago  taken  by  Gramberg  was  the  safest  one  for  the 
critics  in  dealing  with  this  chapter,  viz.  :  that  the  docu- 
ments are  so  blended  that  it  is  impossible  to  effect  a  par- 
tition, and  "no  one  can  tell  what  belongs  to  the  Elohist, 
what  to  the  Jehovist,  and  what  to  the  redactor."  ^ 

In  fact  some  of  the  critics  lean  strongly  toward  the 
admission  of  the  unity  of  this  narrative.  Hupfeld 
("  Quellen,"  p.  178)  speaks  of  it  as  "  a  complete  and  ar- 
ticulated whole,"  that  would  in  every  case  be  the  loser 
by  any  omission ;  and  he  adds,  "I  cannot  conceal  the  fact 
that  the  entire  narrative  seems  to  me  to  bear  the  stamp 
of  the  Jehovist ;  and  certainly  one  would  never  think  of 
the  Elohist,  but  for  the  name  Elohim  (proj).,  ha-Elohim), 
which  here  (as  in  part  in  the  history  of  Joseph)  is  not 
supported  by  the  internal  phenomena  and  embarrasses 
criticism."  Knobel  gives  the  entire  passage  to  J,  and 
opens  the  way  to  a  correct  understanding  of  it  by  calling 
attention  to  the  fact,  remarked  ujDon  before  by  Hengsten- 
berg  and  others,  that  the  change  of  divine  names  occurs 
at  the  crisis  of  the  narrative.  It  is  Elohim  who  tries  the 
faith  of  Abraham  (vs.  1-10) ;  it  is  Jehovah  who  stays  the 
patriarch's  hand  and  blesses  him  (vs.  11-18).  Knobel 
says,  "  Apart  from  Elohim  nothing  in  this  narrative  re- 
minds us  of  the  Elohist;  on  the  contrary  everything 
speaks  for  the  Jehovist.  ...  On  account  of  the 
divine  name  Elohim   (vs.  1,  3,  8,  9),  one  might  suppose 

'  Ilgen  splinters  this  passage  iu  a  very  remarkable  way,  splitting 
verses,  duplicating  phrases,  giving  some  particulars  to  E,  and  others  to 
J,  and  thus  tries  to  make  out  two  separate  narratives  of  the  transaction. 
No  one,  even  of  those  who  are  most  prone  to  adopt  similar  methods 
elsewhere,  has  thought  fit  to  follow  him  here. 


284  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   TERAH 

that  the  author  was  here  giving  a  story  taken  from  an 
older  source,  as  in  ch.  xx.,xxi.  But  the  passage  contains 
no  other  traces  of  it ;  and  we,  therefore,  have  to  assume 
that  the  Jehovist  here  uses  Elohim  so  long  as  there  is 
reference  to  a  human  sacrifice,  and  only  introduces  Je- 
hovah (ver.  11)  after  setting  aside  such  a  saoiifice, 
which  was  foreign  to  the  religion  of  Jehovah."  And  he 
refers  to  iii.  1,  3,  5  as  an  illustrative  jjassage,  where  in  J 
Elohim  is  used  in  the  conversation  of  Eve  and  the  ser- 
pent. 

The  real  significance  of  the  divine  names  as  here  used 
is  stated  in  a  more  satisfactory  manner  by  Delitzsch. 
He  accepts  Hupfeld's  critical  division,  but  destroys  the 
basis  on  which  it  rests  by  showing  that  Elohim  and  Je- 
hovah are  here  used  with  a  strict  regard  to  their  proper 
meaning,  so  that  they  do  not  aiford  the  slightest  ground 
for  assuming  a  diversity  of  writers.  Delitzsch  says, 
"  The  God  who  bids  Abraham  sacrifice  Isaac  is  called 
(ha-)Elohim,  and  the  divine  manifestation,  which  pre- 
vents the  sacrifice,  the  angel  of  Jehovah.  He  who  de- 
mands from  Abraham  the  surrender  of  Isaac  is  God  the 
creator,  who  has  power  over  life  and  death,  and  therefore 
the  power  to  take  back  what  he  has  given.  But  Jehovah 
in  his  angel  prevents  the  execution  of  it  at  the  last  ex- 
treme ;  for  the  son  of  the  promise  cannot  perish  without 
the  promise  of  God  perishing  also,  and  with  it  his  truth- 
fulness and  the  realization  of  his  purpose  of  salvation." 
The  Creator  is  the  sovereign  Lord  of  all.  He  has  the 
right  to  demand  that  the  dearest  and  the  best  shall  be 
surrendered  to  him.  It  was  not  that  he  from  nothing  is 
or  can  be  hid,  might  ascertain  the  strength  of  Abraham's 
faith,  that  this  test  was  imposed  upon  him,  but  for  Abra- 
ham's own  sake,  that  his  faith  might  be  confirmed  and 
strengthened  by  this  heroic  exercise  of  it,  and  that  the 
latent  power  of  it  might  be  exhibited  to  himself  and 


SACKIFICE   OF   ISAAC   (CH.    XXII.   1-19)  285 

others.  Would  Abraham  give  up  his  beloved  Isaac  at 
God's  bidding,  the  child  for  whom  he  had  so  long  hoped 
and  waited,  the  child  of  promise,  and  on  whom  all  the 
other  promises  made  to  him  were  suspended  ?  Would 
he  yield  him  up  to  God  with  the  same  submission  with 
which  the  heathen  around  him  sacrificed  their  children 
to  their  cruel  deities?  But  Abraham's  God  abhorred 
the  bloody  sacrifice  of  the  first-born.  It  was  the  spir- 
itual surrender  alone  that  he  required.  But  that  must 
be  unambiguously  expressed  in  an  outward  act,  that  ad- 
mitted of  no  pretence  and  no  evasion.  It  was  a  terrible 
test,  safe  only  in  a  divine  hand,  capable  of  intervening, 
as  he  did  intervene,  and  as  it  was  his  purpose  from  the 
first  to  intervene,  as  soon  as  the  spiritual  end  of  the  trial 
was  accomplished. 

And  herein  lay,  as  Delitzsch  further  observes,  "an 
eternally  valid  divine  protest  against  human  sacrifice," 
while  "  the  ram  in  the  thorn  bush,  which  Abraham  offered 
instead  of  Isaac,  is  the  prototype  of  the  animal  sacrifices, 
which  are  here  sanctioned  on  the  same  mountain,  on 
which  the  blood  of  the  typical  animal  sacrifices  was  to 
fiow  during  the  entire  period  of  the  Old  Testament." 
Dillmann's  suggestion,  that  "  the  reminiscence  here  still 
plainly  glimmers  through  that  the  Hebrews  once  stood 
in  respect  to  child-sacrifice  on  a  like  plane  with  the  other 
Shemites  and  Canaanites,"  is  a  gi-oss  and  utterly  im- 
founded  misrepresentation.  The  lesson  of  the  narrative 
is  precisely  the  reverse,  that  while  God  put  Abraham's 
faith  and  obedience  to  the  severest  test,  he  did  not  re- 
quire the  sacrifice  of  his  child.  It  was  only  in  later  and 
degenerate  ages  that  such  sacrifices  were  known  among 
the  Hebrews,  being  borrowed  from  the  surrounding 
heathen  like  other  idolatrous  abominations. 

The  Elohim  of  ver.  12  does  not  invalidate  the  explana- 
tion above  given  of  the  divine  names  occurring  in  this 


286  THE   GENERATIONS    OF  TERAH 

passage.  As  was  long  since  shown  by  Ewald,  Elohim  is 
here  the  proper  word.  "  Both  names  of  God  can  be  used 
with  the  word  '  fear,'  but  with  the  distinction  that  '  the 
fear  of  Jehovah '  respects  Jehovah  as  opposed  to  strange 
gods  (1  Sam.  xii.  24 ;  Ps.  cxv.  10,  11 ;  cxxxv.  20) ;  while 
'  the  fear  of  God '  only  expresses  submission  to  God  or 
piety  in  general,  as  2  Sam.  xxiii.  3 ;  Gen.  xx.  11.  The 
latter  is  evidently  demanded  here,  when  the  angel  says 
to  Abraham  that  he  is  God-fearing  and  submissive  to  the 
divine  will.  The  '  fear  of  Jehovah  '  would  have  implied 
that  Abraham  had  been  tempted  to  idolatry  ;  but  it  was 
only  his  steadfast  submission  to  God  that  was  tested." 

MARKS   OF   E 

Dillmann  claims  that  this  narrative  was  not  originally 
drawn  up  by  J,  "  although  in  the  language  there  are  va- 
rious things  (allerlei)  that  remind  of  him,"  but  by  E,  as 
shown  by — 

1.  "  The  prevailing  use  of  Elohim  or  ha-Elohim  "  ; 
this  is  explained  above. 

2.  "  The  revelation  in  a  vision  at  night  (ver.  1) "  ;  but 
so  also  in  J.     See  ch.  xx.,  Marks  of  E,  No.  4. 

3.  "  The  call  and  answer  (vs.  1,  7,  11)  "  ;  twice  besides 
inE  (xxxi.  11  ;  xlvi.  2).  In  aU  other  passages  there  is  a 
great  diversity  of  critical  opinion ;  xxvii.  1,  18,  is  by  most 
critics  referred  to  J,  but  by  Wellhausen  and  Dillmann  to 
E,  simply  and  solely  on  account  of  this  ver}^  form  of 
speech,  while  the  context  is  assigned  to  JE  as  incapable 
of  separation ;  xxxvii.  13  stands  in  a  mixed  JE  context, 
which  Kautzsch  cannot  unravel,  while  Wellhausen  and 
Cornill  cut  out  the  clause  containing  this  phrase  and  as- 
sign it  to  E  on  this  account ;  Ex.  iii.  4b  is  cut  out  of  a  J 
context  by  Wellhausen  on  account  of  this  phrase  and 
given  to  E  ;  it  is  also  assigned  to  E  by  Dillmann,  who 
gives  ver.  4a  to  J. 


SACRIFICE   OF   ISAAC    (CH.   XXII.    1-19)  287 

4.  "Tlie  angel  calliug  out  of  heaven  (ver.  11)."  In 
one  instance  and  one  only  "  the  angel  of  Elohim  "  is  said 
to  have  called  out  of  heaven  (xxi.  17).  "The  angel  of  Je- 
hovah "  does  the  same  (xxii.  11,  15),  which  but  for  criti- 
cal legerdemain  belong  to  J.  Angels  come  down  to  earth 
in  E  (xxviii.  12)  and  meet  Jacob  on  his  way  (xxxii.  2,  E. 
V.  ver.  1) ;  one  spoke  to  him  in  a  dream  (xxxi.  11)  with- 
out any  suggestion  of  the  voice  coming  out  of  heaven.  It 
cannot  be  reckoned  a  peculiarity  of  E,  therefore,  that 
angels  call  out  of  heaven. 

5.  "  nis  in  a  local  sense  (ver.  5)  " ;  so  in  E  (xxxi.  37 ; 
Num.  xxiii.  15).  It  occurs  besides  in  this  sense  in  two 
other  places  in  the  Hexateuch,  one  of  which  (Ex.  ii.  12)  is 
referred  to  J  by  Wellhausen,  and  the  other  (Num.  xi.  31) 
by  Kuenen.  513  i:?  the  same  combination  as  in  Gen.  xxii. 
5,  occurs  twice  besides  in  the  Hexateuch,  in  both  in- 
stances in  a  temporal  sense  ;  of  these  Ex.  vii.  16  is  re- 
ferred to  J  by  Cornill,  and  Josh,  xvii.  14  by  Kuenen. 

6.  "  ^^n;;'  only,  vs.  2,  12  "  ;  also  ver.  16  R  (other  critics 
J) ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch. 

That  Isaac  is  here  called  Abraham's  "  only  "  son  im- 
plies the  previous  narrative  of  the  dismissal  of  Ishmael 
(xxi.  14  sqq.)  ;  the  providential  disclosure  of  the  ram  to 
Abraham  (ver.  13)  resembles  that  of  the  well  to  Hagar 
(xxi.  19) ;  and  the  return  to  Beersheba  (ver.  19)  is  based 
upon  xxi.  31,  32  (but  also  ver.  33  J).  But  while  this  nar- 
rative is  thus  linked  with  passages  ascribed  by  the  critics 
to  E,  it  is  no  less  indissolubly  tied  to  those  which  are 
attributed  to  J.  This  final  trial  of  Abraham's  faith  is  a 
fitting  climax  to  the  series  of  trials  previously  recorded 
by  J.  And  vs.  15-18,  whose  necessary  connection  with 
the  previous  part  of  the  chapter,  both  in  matter  and  in  the 
form  of  its  expressions,  has  already  been  exhibited,  re- 
peats with  special  emphasis  promises  elsewhere  ascribed 
to  J,  preserving  both  their  language  and  their  figurative 


288  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TEKAH 

form.  "I  will  bless  thee,"  as  xii.  2  ;  "  multiply  thy  seed 
as  the  stars  of  the  heayen,"  as  xv.  5;  xxvi.  4;  "and  the 
sand  which  is  upon  the  sea-shore,"  as  xiii.  16 ;  xxxii.  13 
(E.  y.  ver.  12)  ;  "  thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  his 
enemies  "  as  xxiv.  60  ;  "  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  be  blessed,"  as  xii.  3 ;  xviii.  18 ;  xxvi.  4 ; 
"  because  thou  hast  obeyed  my  voice,"  as  xviii.  19 ; 
xxvi.  5. 


MARKS   OF   R 

DiUmann  repeats  Hitzig's  objection  that  vs.  15-18 
cannot  be  by  E,  the  reputed  author  of  the  previous  part 
of  the  chapter,  because  this  second  communication  by 
the  angel  instead  of  being  a  continuation  of  ver.  12  is 
added  afterward  in  a  supplementary  manner.  But  this 
carping  criticism  betrays  a  lack  of  appreciation  of  a  feat- 
ure of  the  narrative  which  adds  to  its  beauty  and  im- 
pressiveness  regarded  merely  from  a  rhetorical  point  of 
view.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  angel  might  not  speak 
twice,  as  well  as  once.  It  was  enough  at  first  to  arrest 
the  patriarch's  hand  and  approve  his  obedience.  The 
promise  of  Jehovah,  attested  by  a  solemn  oath,  most  fitly 
concludes  the  scene  after  Abraham  had  completed  his 
act  of  worship  by  offering  the  ram.  If  this  order  had 
been  reversed,  and  the  action  continued  after  the  angel 
had  spoken,  attention  would  have  been  diverted  from 
that  which  now  crowns  the  whole,  and  upon  which  chief 
stress  is  laid. 

It  is  further  charged  that — 

1.  ir^yarp  ^^  by  myself  have  I  sivorn  (ver.  16),  is  a 
formula  that  belongs  to  a  later  time,  e.g.,  Isa.  xlv,  23  '> 
Jer.  xxii.  5 ;  xlix.  13.  But  that  God  did  thus  confirm 
his  promise  to  Abraham  by  an  oath  is  abundantly  at- 
tested (Gen.  xxiv.  7 ;  xxvi.  3 ;  1.  24 ;  Ex.  xxxiii.  1 ;  Num. 


SACRIFICE   OP   ISAAC   (CH.   XXII.    1-19)  289 

xxxii.  11 ;  Deut.  i.  8,  etc.).  And  that  this  was  an  oath 
by  himself  is  expressly  affirmed  (Ex.  xxxii.  13).  An 
equivalent  asseveration  by  his  own  life  is  also  attributed 
to  Jehovah  in  the  Pentateuch  (Num.  xiv.  21,  28 ;  Deut. 
xxxii.  40). 

2.  rnn*'  ni^p  saifh  Jehovah  (ver.  16),  is  also  said  to  be  a 
prophetic  formula  of  a  later  period.  But  the  phrase  oc- 
curs again  (Num.  xiv.  28).  And  DS53  occurs  besides  in 
the  prophecies  of  Balaam  (Num.  xxiv.  3,  4,  15, 16),  where 
its  antiquity  is  vouched  for  by  the  obvious  imitations  in 
2  Sam.  xxiii.  1 ;  Prov.  xxx.  1. 

3.  "iTlJsi;  "j:?^  because  (ver.  16) ;  besides  in  the  Hexateuch 
Deut.  i.  36  ;  Josh.  xiv.  14.  "jy^  occurs  also  Num.  xi.  20  J; 
Lev.  xxvi.  43  J  worked  over  (so  Dillmann) ;  and  Num. 
XX.  12,  which  Wellhausen  assigns  to  P,  and  Dillmann  also 
to  P,  except  only  the  clause  containing  this  word,  which 
he  refers  to  E. 

4.  ncij;  np3?  because  (ver,  18) ;  but  once  besides  in  the 
Hexateuch  xxvi.  5.  n;?:^  occiu's  also  Num.  xiv.  24 ;  Deut. 
vii.  12 ;  viii.  20.  The  employment  of  these  unusual  con- 
junctions, as-  of  the  emphatic  absolute  infinitives  in 
ver.  17,  is  due,  as  Dillmann  correctly  observes,  to  the 
solemn  and  impressive  character  of  this  angelic  utter- 
ance. 

5.  ^flSriil  bless  one's  self,  i.e.,  seek  and  obtain  a  blessing 
(ver.  18).  This  reflexive  form  of  the  verb  occurs  twice 
in  the  promise  of  a  blessing  upon  all  nations  through 
Abraham  and  his  seed,  viz.,  here  and  xxvi.  4  ;  the  passive 
form  tjnns  be  blessed,  is  used  instead  three  times,  viz., 
xii.  3;  xviii.  18;  xxviii.  14.  The  sense  is  substantially 
the  same,  ^nnp  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. ?|"iann  occurs  besides,  Deut.  xxix.  18  (E.  V.  ver. 
19) ;  Ps.  Ixxii.  17  ;  Isa.  Ixv.  16 ;  Jer.  iv.  2.  There  is  noth- 
ing to  indicate  that  one  form  is  of  later  origin  than  the 
other. 

19 


290  THE   GENERATIONS   OF  TERAH 


NO   PROOF   OP  SEPARATE  DOCUMENTS 

The  diction  of  tliese  verses  cannot  prove  tliem  to  be  of 
later  date  than  the  rest  of  the  chapter.  There  is  no  oc- 
casion, therefore,  to  call  in  the  aid  of  R  in  their  produc- 
tion. And  neither  in  this  chapter  nor  in  those  that  pre- 
cede is  there  any  just  ground  for  assuming  the  existence 
of  a  writer  E,  distinct  from  J.  Their  diction  is  indistin- 
guishable.i  The  divine  names  are  used  discriminatingly 
throughout,  and  afford  no  criterion  of  diverse  authorship. 

And  the  attempt  to  establish  a  distinctive  diction  for 
P  cannot  be  called  successful.  Of  all  the  so-called  char- 
acteristic P  words  and  phrases  of  the  creation  and  flood 
Elohim  is  almost  the  only  one  that  occurs  henceforth  in 
P  paragraphs  in  Genesis.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the 
entire  section  of  the  Generations  of  Terah,  which  the 
critics  regard  as  peculiar  to  P,  that  is  found  in  antece- 
dent chapters  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few  expressions 
in  ch.  xvii.,  and  these  are  chiefly  due  to  the  fact  that 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham  naturally  calls  for  the  use 
of  the  same  terms  as  his  covenant  with  Noah.  And  those 
which  are  ascribed  to  P  in  this  section  either  do  not  re- 
appear in  Genesis,  or  are  found  as  well  in  J  and  E  with 
rare  exceptions,  which  contain  their  explanation  in  them- 
selves. It  has  been  previously  shown  that  the  differences 
existing  between  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist  paragraphs  in 
the  ante-patriarchal  portion  of  Genesis  are  not  such  as  to 
imply  distinct  authors,  but  are  readily  explicable  from  the 

'  In  addition  to  the  proofs  already  given  that  the  alleged  diversities 
are  not  really  such,  note  the  following  coincidences  between  what  is 
ascribed  to  E  in  this  chapter  and  what  is  referred  to  J  elsewhere. 
nOD  (ver.  1)  as  Ex.  xvi.  4  ;  j^j  (ver.  2)  as  xii.  13 ;  xviii,  30  ;  -^^  -^^  (ver. 
2)  as  xii.  1  ;  n^i^sc  -i?3K  "l^^K  (ver.  2)  as  xxvi.  2,  of.  xii.  1  ;  ^pan  tJ-'D^n 
(ver.  3)  as  xix.  27. 


FAMILY   OF   NAHOK   (CH.   XXII.    30-24)  291 

matter  of  these  paragraphs  respectively,  and  from  the  spe- 
cial meaning  and  usage  of  the  divine  names  Elohim  and 
Jehovah.  The  same  thing  is  yet  more  emphatically  true 
of  that  portion  of  Genesis  which  we  are  now  considering. 
The  difference  of  diction  that  is  here  alleged  between  P 
and  J  is  wholly  factitious,  being  created  by  two  features 
of  the  critical  partition,  viz. :  the  scanty  fragments  of  the 
narrative  attributed  to  P,  and  the  peculiar  character  of 
the  only  two  paragi-aphs  of  any  length  (chs.  xvii.  and 
xxiii.)  which  are  accorded  to  him.  As  only  diminutive 
portions  of  the  narrative  are  awarded  to  P,  it  is  not  to 
be  expected  that  these  will  contain  the  full  vocabulary 
of  the  bulk  of  the  narratives,  which  is  shared  between 
the  other  documents.  That  numerous  words  and  phrases 
occur  in  J  and  E,  which  are  not  to  be  foand  in  P,  thus 
arises  out  of  the  inequality  in  the  apportionment.  And 
when  to  the  difference  in  quantity  is  added  the  difference 
in  the  nature  of  the  material  assigned  to  P  on  the  one 
hand,  and  to  J  and  E  on  the  other,  all  the  diversity  of 
diction  is  fully  accounted  for.  And  the  entire  critical 
superstructure  of  separate  documents  which  has  been 
built  upon  it  crumbles  into  nothing. 

It  may  at  least  be  safely  affirmed  that  no  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  such  documents  has  been  brought  to 
light  in  that  part  of  Genesis  which  has  thus  far  been 
considered.  And  this  is  the  portion  of  the  book  in  which 
the  divisive  hypothesis  has  been  supposed  to  be  most 
strongly  entrenched.  It  must  find  its  justification  here, 
if  it  can  do  so  anywhere. 

FAMILY   OF  NAHOR  (CH.    XXII.    20-24) 

Tuch,  Noldeke,  and  Knobel  refer  these  verses,  which 
contain  a  list  of  the  children  of  Nahor,  to  P  ;  Wellhausen 
gives  them  to  E  ;  Hupfeld  and  Dillmann  to  J,  which  last 


292  THE   GENERATIOlSrS   OF   TERAH 

is  now  the  current  critical  opinion.  The  determining 
consideration  is  that  the  mention  of  Rebekah,  the 
only  daughter  named  of  any  of  the  twelve  sons  (ver.  23), 
is  evidently  designed  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  narra- 
tive of  Isaac's  marriage  in  ch.  xxiv.,  which  is  assigned  to 
J.  Only  those  women  have  a  place  in  the  genealogies, 
of  whom  there  is  occasion  to  speak  in  the  subsequent  his- 
tory. And  xxii.  23  is  distinctly  referred  to  in  xxiv.  15, 
24.  Accordingly,  the  E  phrase  at  the  beginning,  "  and  it 
came  to  pass  after  these  things,"  as  xxii.  1  ;  xl.  1 ;  xlviii. 
1,  is  either  quietly  ignored,  as  by  Dillmann,  or  attributed 
to  R,  as  by  Kautzsch.  The  diffuseness  shown  in  the 
repetition  (ver.  23b)  of  what  had  already  been  stated 
(ver.  20b),  which  is  elsewhere  reckoned  a  characteristic 
of  P,  is  also  ignored.  The  assertion  that  P  would  have 
prefixed  the  title,  "  These  are  the  generations  of  Nahor," 
overlooks  the  fact  that  Nahor,  like  Abraham,  belonged  to 
the  family  of  Terah,  and  all  that  appertained  to  both  fell 
properly  under  the  "  Generations  of  Terah."  The  men- 
tion of  Milcah  (ver.  20),  refers  back  to  xi.  29,  where  her 
marriage  to  Nahor  is  stated  in  preparation  for  this  very 
passage.  It  is  this  which  compelled  the  critics  to  claim 
xi.  29  for  J,  thus  sundering  it  from  xi.  27  P,  to  which  it 
is  indissolubly  bound. 

MAKES   OF  J 

1.  nb^  hegat  (ver.  23).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No. 
20. 

2.  tJ5ib*^2  concuhine  (ver.  24)  ;  besides  in  the  Hexateuch 
XXV.  6 ;  XXXV.  22a ;  xxxvi.  12 ;  and  in  each  instance  at- 
tributed to  R. 

3.  fiiin  oa  she  also  (vs.  20,  24) ;  in  J,  besides,  iv.  4,  26  ; 
x.  21 ;  xxvii.  31 ;  xxxviii.  10,  11 ;  xlviii.  19 ;  in  E  xxxii. 
19  (E.  V.  ver.  18).     oa  does  not  chance  to  occur  with  this 


DEATH   AJfD   BURIAL   OF   SARAH    (CH,  XXIII.)      293 

particular  pronoun  in  the  passages  assigned  to  P,  but  it 
is  used  in  the  same  manner  with  other  personal  pronouns 
(Ex.  vi.  5 ;  vii.  11 ;  Num.  xviii.  3,  28  P).  See  under  ch. 
X.,  page  137. 

4.  m2W'^  and  her  name,  i.e.,  whose  name  was  (ver,  24), 
claimed  by  Wellhausen,  but  not  by  Dillmann,  as  a  crite- 
rion of  J ;  besides,  in  J,  xvi.  lb ;  xxiv.  29  ;  xxv.  1  ; 
xxxviii.  1,  2,  6  ;  in  JE,  Josh.  ii.  1.  This  is  the  uniform 
way  throughout  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment of  introducing  the  name  of  a  person  who  has  just 
been  mentioned,  and  cannot  be  regarded  as  peculiar  to 
any  one  writer. 

That  precisely  twelve  sons  of  Nahor  are  here  enumer- 
ated, "as  of  Ishmael,  Israel,  and  Edom,"  as  is  correctly 
explained  by  Dillmann,  "  does  not  rest  upon  a  transfer  of 
Israelitish  relations  to  those  of  kindred  stock  (so  Knobel), 
nor  upon  the  mere  systematizing  of  the  writer  (so  N61- 
deke),  but  upon  the  usages  of  these  peoples,"  which  were 
in  point  of  fact  severally  divided  into  just  twelve  tribes. 

In  regard  to  the  alleged  variant  descent  of  Aram  and 
Uz  (ver.  21,  cf.  x.  22,  23),  see  under  ch.  x.  pp.  137-139. 

DEATH   AND   BUEIAL   OF   SARAH    (CH.    XXIH.) 

The  land  of  Canaan  had  been  promised  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  for  their  permanent  possession,  xii.  7  ;  xiii. 
15  ;  XV.  18  ;  xvii.  8 ;  but  he  had  now  for  more  than  sixty 
years  been  a  wanderer  and  a  sojourner,  with  no  absolute 
ownership  of  any  portion  of  the  soil.  Hence  the  stress 
laid  in  this  chapter  upon  the  purchase  of  the  field  and 
cave  of  Machpelah,  the  first  spot  of  ground  to  which  he 
obtained  a  legal  title.  The  transaction  was  conducted 
with  punctilious  regard  to  all  the  necessary  formalities, 
and  these  are  recited  in  detail ;  all  which  evidences  not 
the  diffuse  style  of  a  particular  writer  P,  but  the  impor^ 


294  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

tance  which  was  attached  to  the  rights  thus  conveyed. 
The  securing  of  this  burial-place  was  properly  regarded 
as  a  first  instalment  and  a  pledge  of  the  final  fulfilment 
of  the  divine  promise,  and  as  indicative  of  Abraham's 
implicit  faith  in  that  promise.  The  subsequent  refer- 
ences to  it  are  also  made  with  a  formality  and  a  studied 
repetition  of  the  language  here  employed,  w^hich  show 
how  significant  it  was  held  to  be,  and  how  it  both  nur- 
tured and  served  to  give  expression  to  the  faith  of  the 
patriarchs,  and  particularly  of  Jacob,  after  he  had  re- 
moved to  Egypt  (xxv.  9,  10  ;  xlix.  29-32  ;  1.  13).  For 
the  same  reason  it  is  twice  emphatically  repeated  in  ch. 
xxiii.  that  this  was  "in  the  land  of  Canaan"  (vs.  2,  19). 
And,  as  Havernick  suggests,  the  consequence  attributed 
in  these  various  passages  to  the  possession  of  a  burial- 
place  implies  that  the  record  was  made  prior  to  the  ac- 
tual occupation  of  Canaan  by  the  Israelites,  after  which 
it  ceased  to  be  of  special  interest,  and  is  never  again  re- 
ferred to. 

Noldeke  imagines  a  discrepancy  with  Gen.  xxxiii.  19, 
Josh.  xxiv.  32  E,  according  to  which  passages  "Jacob 
makes  the  first  acquisition  of  land  at  Shechem  by  pur- 
chase." The  discrepancy  is  a  sheer  creation  of  the  critic. 
Although  Jacob's  purchase  was  snfficiently  memorable 
to  be  deemed  worthy  of  special  record,  there  is  no  inti- 
mation that  it  was  the  first  territorial  acquisition  of  the 
patriarchs. 

Eichhorn  '  remarks  upon  this  transaction :  "  In  Meso- 
potamia, where  no  Canaanites  traded,  gold  and  silver 
were  still  rare  in  Jacob's  time ;  everything  was  acquired 
by  exchange,  and  Jacob  gives  twenty  years  of  service  as 
a  herdsman  in  exchange  for  two  wives,  servants,  maid- 
servants, and  flocks.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Canaan,  in 
the  neighborhood  of  the  Phoenicians,  who  had  in  their 

1  Eiuleitimg  in  das  Alte  Testament,  3d  edit.,  1803,  vol.  ii.,  p.  373. 


DEATH   AND   BURIAL   OF   SARAH   (CH.    XXIII.)      295 

hands  the  trade  of  the  world,  barter  was  no  longer  in 
vogue  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  but  silver  was  used  as 
pretmm  eminens,  not,  however,  in  coins  of  different  de- 
nominations, but  by  weight  (ver.  16).  Yet  in  Jacob's 
time  the  Phoenicians  probably  had  rude  coins  (xxxiii.  19). 
.  .  .  Abraham  buys  the  cave  of  Machpelah  in  the 
presence  of  witnesses,  and  counts  upon  remaining  in  un- 
disturbed possession  of  the  field,  just  as  in  Homer  the 
Greeks  and  Trojans  count  assm-edly  upon  the  fulfilment 
of  the  treaty  which  has  been  concluded,  because  both 
armies  were  present  at  the  oral  agreement." 

"  Abraham  came  to  mourn  for  Sarah  "  (ver.  2),  should 
perhaps  be  rendered  "tuent  in"  to  her  tent  (cf.  xviii. 
6).  Some,  however,  understand  it  to  mean  that  he  came 
from  Beersheba,  and  find  here  a  link  of  connection  with 
xxii.  19,  and  suppose  in  ver.  4,  "a  sojourner,"  an  allu- 
sion to  xxi.  34,  "  he  sojourned  in  the  land  of  the  Phil- 
istines." 

The  single  occurrence  of  Elohim  in  ch.  xxiii.  (ver.  6), 
in  the  mouth  of  the  children  of  Heth  is  so  entirely  in 
accordance  with  Hebrew  usage  that  no  individual  pecu- 
liarity of  a  particular  writer  can  be  inferred  from  it. 

Chs.  xvii.  and  xxiii.  severally  relate  to  the  two  chief 
promises  made  to  Abraham,  and  from  time  to  time  re- 
peated, viz.,  his  future  seed  and  the  land  of  Canaan.  One 
records  the  ordaining  of  circumcision  ;  the  other  the  ac- 
quisition of  the  first  possession  in  the  land.  Both  are 
thoroughly  germane  to  the  entire  history,  and  give  no 
indication  of  being  interpolated  additions.  The  stress 
laid  upon  each,  and  the  legal  precision  natural  in  insti- 
tuting the  rite  and  in  describing  the  deed  of  purchase 
give  to  these  chapters  an  appearance  of  formal  repetition, 
which  does  not  belong  to  such  portions  of  ordinary  nar- 
rative as  are  ascribed  to  P.  This  peculiar  material  re- 
quires, of  course,  a  fitting  style  and  diction,  and  sufficiently 


296  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   TERAH 

accounts  for  any  divergence  in  this  respect  from  other 
paragraphs.^ 

MARKS   OF  P 

1.  "  The  chronological  statement "  (ver.  1).  See  ch. 
xvi.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  1. 

2.  "  The  aim  of  the  narrative,  the  juristic  punctilious- 
ness and  formality  of  the  record."  It  has  been  shown 
that  the  narrative  is  closely  related  to  the  antecedent  his- 
tory, and  is  precisely  in  line  with  the  promises  to  Abra- 
ham, which  are  the  burden  of  the  Avhole ;  also  that  the 
minute  exactness  of  the  record  corresponds  with  the 
character  of  the  transaction.  It  does  not  appear  why 
the  same  historian,  who  describes  other  events  in  the  life 
of  Abraham,  cannot  include  this  likewise  in  his  narra- 
tive, and  in  doing  so  cannot  adapt  his  style  to  the  nature 
of  the  subject. 

3.  "  Children  of  Heth  "  (vs.  3,  etc.).  This  is  an  obvi- 
ous reference  to  x.  15  J,  where  the  tribe  or  tribal  ances- 
tor is  called  Heth. 

4.  "  Machpelah  "  (vs.  9,  17,  19),  only  mentioned  else- 
where as  the  burial-place  of  patriarchs  and  with  explicit 
reference  to  this  passage  (xxv.  9  ;  xlix.  30  ;  1.  13).  Since 
all  the  passages  in  which  this  cave  is  spoken  of  are  re- 
ferred to  P,  there  is  no  oj^portunity  for  this  word  to  oc- 
cur in  J  or  E. 

^-  "^rn  ''i?1^  years  of  the  life  of  (ver.  1)  ;  as  this  phrase 
is  only  used  when  stating  the  age  of  a  person,  and  such 
passages  are  by  rule  referred  to  P,  it  cannot  be  expected 
in  J  or  E. 

'  Observe  how  even  Wellhausen  (Comp.  d.  Hex.,  p.  1G8),  in  con- 
tending that  Lev.  xsvi.  is  by  the  author  of  chs.  xvii.-xxv.,  insists  that 
"the  differences  of  language  are  sufficiently  explained  by  the  distinct 
character  of  the  material ;  hitherto  laws  in  dry  style  suited  to  the  sub- 
ject, now  prophecy  in  poetic  and  impassioned  discourse." 


DEATH   AND   BURIAL   OF   SARAH    (CH.    XXIII.)      297 

6.  n-THX  possession  (vs.  4,  9,  20).  See  ch.  xvii.,  Marks 
of  P,  No.'V. 

7.  atoin  sojourner  (ver.  4) ;  nowhere  else  in  Genesis. 
Only  besides  in  legal  sections  (Ex.  xii.  45  ;  Lev.  xxii.  10  ; 
XXV.  6,  23,  35,  40,  45,  47  ;  Num.  xxxv.  15),  and,  therefore, 
necessarily  limited  to  the  document  to  which  such  sec- 
tions are  given. 

8.  iH'^xS':  prince  (ver.  6).  See  ch.  xvii.,  Marks  of  P,  No. 
11. 

9.  D^p  he  made  sure  (vs.  17,  20) ;  so  in  P  (Lev.  xx^\  30  ; 
xxvii.  14,  17,  19  ;  Num.  xxx.  5-13,  E.  V.,  vs.  4-12).  The 
word  is  here  used  in  the  legal  sense  of  a  contract,  deci- 
sion, or  vow,  standing,  i.e.,  enduring  or  being  valid.  This 
particular  application  of  the  word  can  only  be  expected 
where  the  legal  validity  of  such  arrangements  is  spoken 
of.  It  is,  however,  substantially  the  same  sense  as  in 
Josh.  ii.  11  JE,  remain;  vii.  12,  13  J,  stand Jirm ;  and  in 
the  causative  form,  ratify  or  establish  (Gen.  xxvi.  3  R 
(Dillmann)  or  J  (other  critics) ;  Lev.  xxvi.  9  J  (so  Dill- 
mann)  ;  Num.  xxiii-  19  E). 

10.  bx  ya©  hearken  unto  (ver.  16)  ;  so  in  J  (xvi.  11 ; 
xxxix.  10  ;  xlix.  2)  ;  in  E  (xxi.  17  ;  xx-x.  17). 

11.  nDp'33  imssession  (ver.  18).  See  ch.  xvii.,  Marks  of 
P,  No.  9.^ 

12.  I^SS  f  nx  land  of  Canaan  (vs.  2,  19).  See  ch.  xii.  5, 
Marks  of  P,  No.  4.  Great  stress  is  laid  upon  the  fact 
that  it  was  in  the  land  of  Canaan  that  Sarah  died  and 
was  buried,  and  that  the  spot  purchased  by  Abraham  and 
formally  deeded  to  him  was  in  that  land. 

13.  "  Back  references  to  what  is  related  here  in  xxv.  9, 
10 ;  xlix.  29  sqq.  ;  1.  13."  These  are  freely  admitted  and 
are  proofs  of  a  close  relation  between  those  passages  and 
this  chapter,  but  do  not  imply  that  they  belong  to  a  dif- 
ferent document  from  other  intervening  passages. 

It  will  be  observed  how  little  there  is  that  is  distinc- 


298  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

tive  in  the  diction  of  ch.  xxiii.  to  connect  it  with  other  P 
sections  in  Genesis. 


MARRIAGE   OF   ISAAC   (CH.   XXIV.) 

In  XXV.  20  P  alludes  to  Isaac's  marriage  to  Rebekah, 
daughter  of  Bethuel  and  sister  of  Laban,  in  a  manner  im- 
plying previous  mention  of  these  parties  and  of  this 
event.  Precisely  the  account  thus  called  for  is  to  be 
found  in  ch.  xxiv.  and  the  preliminary  genealogy  (xxii. 
20-24),  both  which,  however,  the  critics  assign  to  J. 
This  makes  it  necessary  for  them  to  assume  that  a  similar 
narrative  was  contained  in  P,  but  R  has  thought  proper 
to  omit  it.  It  is  easy  to  make  conjectural  assumj^tions 
with  the  view  of  evading  or  explaining  away  facts  at  va- 
riance with  the  divisive  hypothesis  ;  only  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  these  assumptions  lend  no  support  to 
the  hypothesis.  They  are  simply  inferences  based  upon 
the  hypothesis.  And  the  necessity  of  multij)lying  such 
assumptions  betrays  the  weakness  of  the  cause  that  re- 
quires them. 

J  has  Aram-naharaim  once  only  (xxiv.  10),  while  P 
has  Paddan-aram  (xxv.  20  and  elsewhere)  ;  but  apart 
from  the  fact  that  these  names  may  not  be  precise 
equivalents,  as  Dillmann  admits,  this  is  no  more  a  rea- 
son for  suspecting  diversity  of  authorship  than  Avhen  J 
uses  two  different  designations  of  the  same  place  :  ^  xxiv. 

'  It  would  argne  no  diversity  of  writers  if,  in  an  account  of  the  land- 
ing of  the  pilgrims,  we  should  read  upon  one  page  that  tliey  reached 
the  coast  of  America,  and  on  the  next  that  they  disembarked  in  New 
England.  In  the  first  mention  of  the  region  the  more  general  term 
Aram-naharaim  is  employed,  but  ever  after  Paddan  aram,  as  indicating 
more  precisely  where  Haran  lay  ;  and  Haran  occurs  in  P  (xi.  31 ;  xii.  5) 
as  well  as  in  J  and  E.  "  Haran  is  a  town  situated  in  Paddan-aram  ; 
but  a  nomad  rarely  lives  shut  up  in  a  town.  The  whole  land  is  his, 
and  he  and  his  flocks  traverse  it  far  and  wide.     The  names  of  the  town 


MARRIAGE   OF   ISAAC    (CH.   XXIV.)  299 

10,  "  city  of  Nahor,"  and  xxvii.  43,  "  Haran  ;  "  or  uses 
ni^^ntC  for  oath,  xxiv.  8,  but  nbs,  ver.  41.  Nor  cau  any 
significance  be  attached  to  the  circumstance  that  J  says 
"  daughters  of  the  Canaanites  "  (xxiv.  3,  37),  and  P, 
"  daughters  of  Canaan  "  (xxviii.  1,  6,  8  ;  xxxvi.  2),  inas- 
much as  J  himself  varies  the  expression  again  (xxxiv.  1) 
to  "  daughters  of  the  land."  And  according  to  Well- 
hausen  P  calls  the  same  persons  "  daughters  of  Hittites  " 
(xxvi.  34),  and  "  daughters  of  Heth  "  (xxvii.  46).  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  observable  as  one  of  the  numberless  in- 
dications of  unity  that  the  same  care  to  avoid  intermar- 
riages with  the  Canaanites  is  shown  in  ch.  xxiv.  as  in 
xxviii.  1-9,  which  the  critics  on  this  very  ground  assign 
to  a  different  document. 

Verse  67  alludes  to  Sarah's  death,  recorded  in  ch.  xxiii. 
P.  But  as  on  critical  principles  one  document  cannot 
refer  to  what  is  contained  in  another,  Dillmann  erases 
the  mention  of  Sarah  here  as  a  later  gloss.  The  allega- 
tion that  the  words  "his  mother  Sarah,"  in  the  first 
clause  of  this  verse,  are  inadmissible  in  Hebrew  con- 
struction is  refuted  by  numerous  examples  of  the  same 
sort,  e.g.,  Gen.  xxxi.  13  ;  Josh.  iii.  11 ;  Judg.  viii.  11 ;  xvi. 
14 ;  and  if  they  were,  this  would  not  affect  the  reading 
in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse.  Wellhausen,  more  bravely 
still,  proposes  to  substitute  "  father  "  for  "  mother,"  as 

and  of  the  land  can  accordingly  be  interchanged  without  indicating  a 
difference  of  style.  But  Genesis  itself  distinguishes  yet  more  narrowly 
between  these  names.  When  Jacob  goes  from  home,  he  always  goes  to 
Haran,  because  he  expects  to  find  the  family  residing  in  the  town 
(xxvii  43 ;  xxviii.  10).  And  when  he  comes  before  the  gates  of  the 
town  (xxix.  4),  and  asks  those  who  come  out,  is  he  not  compelled  to  ask 
for  Haran  ?  It  is  true  that  the  name  of  the  land  to  which  Jacob  is  go- 
ing also  occurs  (xxviii.  2,  5,  6,  7),  but  only  in  contrast  with  the  land  of 
Ishmael  (ver.  9).  But  when  Jacob  journeys  back  again  to  Canaan  he 
always  leaves,  not  Haran,  but  Paddan-aram  ;  for  he  takes  his  flight,  not 
from  the  towu.  but  from  the  land,  where  he  was  pasturing  the  flocks 
far  and  wide." — Ewald,  Komp.  d.  Gen.,  pp.  109,  110. 


300  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

tlie  last  word  of  ver.  67.  He  tells  us  that  Abraham  must 
have  died  before  the  servant's  return,  only  R  has  omitted 
the  account  of  his  death.  And  thus  by  the  clever  device 
of  reconstructing  the  text  a  twofold  advantage  is  gained. 
A  troublesome  allusion  is  escaped  and  a  flat  contradic- 
tion created  between  J  and  P,  for  according  to  the  latter 
(xxv.  7,  20)  Abraham  lived  thirty-five  years  after  Isaac's 
marriage.  Kautzsch  is  not  content  with  this  simple 
emendation,  but  undertakes  to  correct  the  narrative 
more  at  large  upon  the  basis  suggested  by  Wellhausen. 
He  tells  us  that  after  ver.  61a  there  followed  the  an- 
nouncement that  the  servant  on  his  return  found  Abra- 
ham dead  ;  and  consequently,  ver.  61b,  "  the  servant  took 
Rebekah  and  went  his  way  (ver.  62),  in  the  land  of  the 
South,  and  came  to  Isaac  ;  for  he  dwelt  in  the  wilderness 
of  Beer-lahai-roi."  There  is,  he  assures  us,  but  one 
other  possibility,  viz.,  that  ver.  62  may  have  read,  "  Isaac 
was  come  from  the  wilderness  of  Beer-lahai-roi  to  the 
burial  of  Abraham."  One  thing  is  evident,  if  the  critics 
are  right  the  text  is  wrong ;  but  if  the  text  is  right,  how 
is  it  with  the  critics  ? 

In  ver.  61  Knobel  fancies  that  the  second  clause  does 
not  naturally  follow  the  first,  and  that  this  indicates  two 
blended  accounts.  And  as  the  servant  brings  Rebekah, 
not  to  Abraham,  who  had  sent  him,  but  to  Isaac,  and  calls 
Isaac  his  master  (ver.  65),  instead  of  his  master's  son,  as 
vs.  44,  48,  51,  the  inference  is  drawn  that  in  the  older 
narrative,  of  which  there  is  a  fragment  in  vs.  61-67,  it 
was  Isaac,  not  Abraham,  who  deputed  the  servant  upon 
his  errand.  And  in  his  opinion  this  discovery  is  cor- 
roborated by  some  "  very  peculiar  expressions  "  in  these 
verses,  of  which  other  critics  who  have  no  end  to  be 
answered  by  them  take  no  note.  It  surely  is  not  strange 
that  a  bride  should  be  taken  at  once  to  her  husband ; 
nor  that  the  servant  should  call  Isaac  his  master,  since 


MARRIAGE   OF   ISAAC    (CIT.  XXIV.)  301 

he  was  Abraham's  heir,  now  in  mature  age,  and  in 
charge  of  all  his  father's  possessions,  especially  when 
speaking  to  Rebekah.  It  was  equally  natural,  when 
treating  with  her  father  and  brother  in  the  name  of 
Isaac's  father,  that  he  should  speak  of  Isaac  as  his  mas- 
ter's son. 

In  his  first  edition  Dillmann  accepted  Kuobel's  dis- 
covery of  a  variant  account  of  the  mission  of  the  servant, 
and  attributed  vs.  62-67  to  E.  But  in  subsequent  edi- 
tions he  discarded  it  in  favor  of  Hupfeld's  ("Quellen,"  p. 
145)  and  Wellhausen's  version  of  the  story,  that  Abra- 
ham was  at  the  point  of  death  when  he  sent  the  servant, 
and  actually  died  before  the  servant's  return.  In  con- 
formity with  this  it  is  assumed  that  in  J  xxv.  1-6,  lib 
preceded  ch.  xxiv. ;  in  defence  of  which  it  is  urged  that 
the  statement  by  the  servant  (ver.  36),  that  Abraham  had 
given  all  that  he  had  unto  Isaac  is  based  upon  xxv.  5, 
and  Isaac's  dwelling  at  Beer-lahai-roi  (xxv.  lib)  is  pre- 
supposed in  xxiv.  62.  But  the  servant  might  state  a 
fact  from  his  own  knowledge,  which  there  had  been  no 
suitable  occasion  to  mention  as  yet  in  the  com-se  of  the 
history.  And  the  sacred  historian  makes  no  formal 
mention  of  the  dwelling-place  of  Isaac  until  he  has  re- 
corded the  death  of  Abraham  (xxv.  8,  11),  precisely  as 
he  records  the  death  of  Isaac  (xxxv.  29)  before  the  like 
formal  mention  of  the  abode  of  Esau  (xxxvi.  6)  and  of 
Jacob  (xxxvii.  1).  The  critics  say  that  R  transposed 
xxv.  1-6,  lib,  from  its  original  position  in  order  to  re- 
move the  conflict  between  J  and  P  as  to  the  time  of 
Abraham's  death.  The  fact  is  that  the  critics  arbitrarily 
assume  this  transposition,  and  fix  the  time  of  Abraham's 
death  at  their  own  liking  for  the  mere  purpose  of  creat- 
ing a  variance  between  ch.  xxiv.  and  ch.  xxv.  which  does 
not  really  exist,  and  thence  deducing  an  argument  for  dis- 
tinct documents.     It  certainly  does  not  prepossess  one 


303  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

in  favor  of  a  cause  that  it  should  be  necessary  to  resort 
to  such  measui'es  in  its  support. 

Knobel  imagines  that  he  detects  a  discrepancy  of 
another  sort  between  J  and  P,  in  relation,  not  to  the 
time  of  Abraham's  death,  but  that  of  Sarah.  According 
to  J,  or  the  older  narrative  which  he  here  follows,  Isaac 
was  comforted  after  his  mother's  death  by  his  marriage 
with  Rebekah  (ver.  67).  But  "  according  to  P  he  was 
thirty-six  or  thirty rseven  years  old  when  Sarah  died  (xvii, 
17  ;  xxi.  5 ;  xxiii.  1),  and  forty  when  he  was  married  (xxv. 
20).  He  must,  therefore,  have  mourned  about  four 
years.  But  thirty  and  seventy  days  were  prolonged 
terms  of  mourning  (1.  3 ;  Num.  xx.  29 ;  Deut.  xxi.  13 ; 
xxxiv.  8).  J,  therefore,  put  Sarah's  death  later,  or 
Isaac's  marriage  earlier  than  P."  As  if  the  duration  of 
the  grief  of  a  loving  son  for  the  loss  of  his  mother  was 
to  be  measured  by  customary  social  formalities. 

Dillmaun  scents  a  doublet  in  ver.  29b,  cf.  30b,  but  as 
he  can  make  no  use  of  it,  he  lets  it  pass,  only  insisting 
that  29b  has  been  transposed  from  its  original  position 
after  30a.  But  there  is  no  textual  error,  and  there  has 
been  no  transposition.  These  verses  simjDly  illustrate 
the  inartificial  style  of  Hebrew  narrative.  The  general 
statement  is  made  first,  29b,  that  Laban  ran  out  unto 
the  man  unto  the  well ;  further  particulars  are  added 
afterward  (ver.  30),  it  was  when  he  saw  the  ring  and 
bracelets  that  had  been  given  his  sister  and  heard  her 
words  that  he  came  out  and  found  the  man  standing  by 
the  well.  Or  one  aspect  of  a  transaction  is  stated  first, 
and  then  followed  by  another  ;  first  (61a)  what  Rebekah 
did,  she  and  her  damsels  followed  the  man ;  then  (61b) 
what  the  servant  did,  he  took  Rebekah  and  went  his 
way.  Such  seeming  repetitious  abound  in  the  historical 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament.'     And  they  afibrd  an  op- 

'  See  xxii.  3b,  4  ;  xxvi.  lb  6  ;    xxviii.  5,  10,  xxix.  1  ;  Ex.  iv.  30,  gen- 


MAKRIAGE   OF   ISAAC   (cn.  XXIV.)  303 

portunitj,  of  which  the  critics  avail  themselves  in  nu- 
merous instances  in  constructing  their  imaginary  dupli- 
cate narratives.  The  general  statement  is  set  over 
against  the  detailed  particulars,  or  one  partial  statement 
over  against  the  other,  as  though  each  had  an  indepen- 
dent origin. 

The  repetitions  of  the  chapter  should  also  be  noted  ; 
vs.  37-41  repeat  vs.  3-8  almost  verbatim  ;  compare  also 
vs.  42-44  with  vs.  12-14 ;  vs.  45,  46,  with  vs.  15-20  ;  vs. 
47,  48,  with  vs.  23-27.  J  here  exceeds  the  repetitious- 
ness  elsewhere  reckoned  a  peculiarity  of  P.  Such  repe- 
titions are  also  seized  upon,  where  they  can  be  made 
available,  as  evidences  of  duplicate  narratives.  Thus, 
when  Moses  reports  to  the  people  (Ex.  ch.  xii.,  xiii.)  the 
directions  given  him  respecting  the  passover,  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread,  and  the  hallowing  of  the  first-born,  as 
the  servant  here  repeats  to  Bethuel  and  Laban  the  charge 
received  from  Abraham,  and  the  incidents  which  had 
been  before  related,  the  critics  find  material  for  two  doc- 
uments by  giving  to  one  what  the  Lord  says  to  Moses, 
and  to  the  other  what  Moses  in  consequence  says  to  the 
people. 

As  it  is  the  God  of  Abraham  that  is  throughout  spo- 
ken of,  Jehovah  is  appropriately  used  in  this  chapter. 
It  is  by  Jehovah  that  Abraham  requires  his  servant  to 
swear  that  he  will  not  take  a  Canaanitish  wife  for  Isaac 
(ver.  3).  It  is  to  the  guidance  of  Jehovah  that  he  com- 
mits his  servant  on  his  important  errand  (ver.  7).  It  is 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  his  master  Abraham,  whom  the  ser- 
vant invokes  (ver.  12),  and  whom  he  recognizes  as  hav- 
ing made  his  journey  prosperous  (vs.  21,  26,  27,  etc.),  so 

eral  statement  ;  21-89,  particulars  of  the  journey  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  12b,  13- 
17  ;  1  Kin.  vi.  14,  general  statement  ;  vs.  15-36,  details  of  the  construc- 
tion ;  2  Chron.  xxiv.  10,  11  ;  similar  illustrations  may  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  e.g..  Acts  vii.  58a,  59. 


804  THE   GENERATIONS   OP  TERAH 

that  Laban,  to  whom  Rebekah  had  made  report,  at  once 
addressed  him  as  "  the  blessed  of  Jehovah; "  and  when 
the  servant  had  given  his  account  of  the  whole  matter, 
Laban  and  BetlmeP  acknowledged  "the  thing  proceedeth 
from  Jehovah  "  (vs.  50,  51).  In  recognition  of  Jehovah's 
supreme  control  Abraham  adds  the  epithet  (vs.  3,  7), 
"  the  God  of  heaven,"  an  expression  only  found  besides 
in  postexilic  writings  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  23 ;  Ezr.  i.  2 ;  Neh. 
i.  4,  5 ;  ii.  4,  20),  with  the  single  exception  of  Jon.  i.  9, 
which  some  critics  would  not  count  an  exception.  If 
this  had  chanced  to  occur  in  P,  it  would  have  been 
urged  in  proof  of  the  late  origin  of  that  document.  But 
as  it  is  in  J  it  is  quietly  ignored,  which  is  an  indication 
of  the  little  weight  that  critics  themselves  attribute  to 
considerations  of  this  nature,  unless  they  have  some  end 
to  answer  by  them. 


MAEKS  OP  J 

It  is  said  that  J  is  here  distinguished  from  E  by  his 
not  naming  Abraham's  chief  servant,  whom  E  calls  Eli- 
ezer  (xv.  2),  nor  Rebekah's  nurse  (ver.  59),  whom  E  calls 
Deborah  (xxxv.  8),  and  makes  her  come  to  Canaan  with 
Jacob  at  a  much  later  time.  But  this  mark  of  distinc- 
tion is  precisely  reversed  in  the  case  of  Ishmael,  wdiom  J 
names  (xvi.  11),  and  E  does  not  (xxi.  9-21).  It  is  also 
nulUtied  by  the  fact  that  neither  J  nor  E  act  uniformly 
in  this  respect  in  relation  to  the  same  persons.  J  gives 
the  names  of  Moses's  wife  and  son  (Ex.  ii.  21,  22),  but  in 

'  Kautzscli  proposes  to  expunge  "Bethuel"  from  the  text  in  ver.  50, 
because  he  is  not  also  mentioned  in  ver.  53.  But  upon  this  Knobel 
remarks:  "Rebekah's  brother  Laban  takes  part  in  the  decision  (Dill- 
mann  adds,  '  and  even  the  first  part ').  He  was  entitled  to  do  so  by  the 
custom  of  brothers  assuming  the  charge  of  their  sister  (xxxiv.  5,  11,  25 ; 
Judg.  xxi.  22;   2  Sam.  xiii.  22)." 


MAERIAGE   OF   ISAAC    (CH.  XXIV.)  305 

iv.  20  does  not.  E  does  not  name  Moses's  sister,  ii.  4, 
but  does,  Num.  xii.  1 ;  he  gives  the  name  of  Moses's  wife 
and  sons  (xviii.  2-4),  but  does  not  name  the  son  (iv.  25), 
nor  the  wife  (Num.  xii.  1),  provided  Zipporah  is  there 
meant.  And  Gen.  xxxv.  8  speaks  of  the  death  of  Debo- 
rah, but  gives  no  intimation  how  or  when  she  came  to 
Canaan.  This  cannot,  therefore,  be  accepted  as  a  cri- 
terion of  distinct  documents. 

When  it  is  said  that  the  high  art  shown  in  the  recital 
points  to  the  narrator  of  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  and  the  lofty  con- 
ception of  marriage  to  the  author  of  ii.  23  sqq.,  no  objec- 
tion need  be  made,  unless  it  is  implied  that  this  narra- 
tor could  not  adapt  his  style  to  subjects  requiring  legal 
precision,  nor  record  genealogies,  dates,  and  the  like ;  or 
that  lower  views  of  marriage  are  expressed  elsewhere  in 
this  book. 

The  following  words  and  expressions  are  adduced  as 
indicative  of  J : 

1.  The  angel  of  Jehovah  (vs.  7,  40).  See  ch.  xvi., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  1. 

2.  The  servant  of  Jehovah  (ver.  14).  This  expression, 
wherever  it  occurs  in  the  Hexateuch,  is  by  Dillmann  re- 
ferred to  J,  D,  or  Ed,  even  where  the  verse  in  which  it 
occurs  is  attributed  to  E,  as  Num.  xii.  7,  8  ;  xiv.  24 ;  Josh, 
xiv.  7  ;  xxiv.  29.     It  occurs  in  P  Lev.  xxv.  42,  55. 

3.  Aram-naharaim  (ver.  10).     Explained  above,  p.  298. 

4.  Daughters  of  the  Canaanites  (ver.  3).  Explained 
above,  p.  299. 

5.  n^'a^n  S3  advanced  in  days  (ver.  1).  See  ch.  xviii., 
xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  32. 

6.  n^SI  nori  kindness  and  truth  (vs.  27, 49) ;  occurs  be- 
sides in  the  Hexateuch  xxxii.  11  (E.  V.,  ver.  10) ;  xlvii. 
29  ;  Ex.  xxxiv.  6  ;  Josh.  ii.  14  J. 

7.  -ipn  nic:?  shmo  kindness  (vs.  12,  14,  49).  See  ch. 
xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  29. 

20 


306  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   TERAH 

8.  ib^N  2^eradventu7'e  (vs.  5,  39).  See  cli.  xwi.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  12. 

9.  pn  only  (ver.  8).     See  ch.  yi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  7. 

10.  SD  /  pray  thee  (vs.  2,  12,  14,  17,  23,  42,  43,  45). 
See  cb.  xii.  10-20,  Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

11.  i:']  with  a  suffix  (vs.  42,  49).  This  particle  occurs 
with  a  suffix  but  three  times  besides  iu  the  Hexateuch, 
viz.,  xliii.  4  J  ;  and  twice  in  Deuteronomy,  Deut.  xiii.  4 ; 
xxix.  14. 

12.  risnjpb  y^"i  run  to  meet  (ver.  17).  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  16,  ch.  xxix.,  xxx.,  No.  2. 

13.  nsn'a  nnb  fair  to  look  ujjon  (ver.  16)  ;  but  once  be- 
sides in  the  Hexateuch,  xxvi.  7  J.  See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  5.  In  xii.  11  a  different  phrase  nS5n'a  ns"'  is 
used  to  express  the  same  idea ;  but  no  critic  thinks  of 
referring  it  to  a  different  document  in  consequence. 

14.  'J-\'^  hioio  (euphemism)  (ver.  16j.  In  J  iv.  1, 17,  25  ; 
xix.  8;  xxxviii.  26 ;  in  P  Num.  xxxi.  17,  18,  35;  all  in 
the  Hexateuch. 

15.  n"ipn  send  good  speed  (ver.  12) ;  only  twice  besides 
in  the  Hexateuch,  viz.,  in  J  xxvii.  20 ;  in  P  Num.  xxxv.  11. 

16.  nibsn  mahe  j)rosperous  (vs.  21,  40,  42,  56)  ;  be- 
sides in  the  Hexateuch  xxxix.  2,  3,  23  J  (E  and  R 
Kautzsch) ;  Josh.  i.  8  D. 

17.  lab'bs?  12i'n  speaJc  in  his  heart  (ver.  45) ;  but  once  be- 
sides iu  the  Hexateuch  in  this  sense,  viii.  21  J ;  with  a 
different  preposition  a  xxvii.  41,  referred  to  J  solely  on 
account  of  this  phrase  ;  xvii.  17  P ;  Deut.  vii.  17 ;  viii. 
17  ;  ix.  4 ;  xviii.  21  D. 

18.  inytB  hating  (for  n'i5  enemy)  (ver.  60) ;  besides  in  E 
Ex.  i.  10 ;  xxiii.  5 ;  several  times  in  D ;  but  not  in  J  ex- 
cept Lev.  xxvi.  17,  which  Dillmann  is  alone  in  referring 
to  that  document. 

19.  "lyiC'ns  cn^  possess  the  gate  (ver.  60) ;  but  once  be- 
sides in  the  Hexateuch  xxii.  17  R. 


CONCLUSION   OF   ABRAHAM'S   LIFE  (CII.  XXV.  l-ll)     307 

20.  ninnwi  ^'ij?  hotu  the  head  and  ivorshij)  (vs.  26,  48); 
five  times  besides  in  the  Hexateuch ;  all  referred  to  J. 

21.  n2"^S  nnnnirn  hoiv  himself  to  the  earth  (ver.  52), 
See  cli.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  27. 

Here,  as  elsewhere,  such  words  as  occur  with  any  fre- 
quency are  found  in  E  as  well  as  in  J ;  several  of  them 
likewise  in  P,  notwithstanding  the  small  amount  of  nar- 
rative which  is  assigned  to  this  document. 


CONCLUSION   OF  ABKAHAM's   LIFE    (CH.    XXV.    1-11) 

The  divisive  critics  unanimously  refer  vs.  7-lla  to  P, 
but  there  is  no  unanimity  among  them  in  regard  to  the 
disposition  to  be  made  of  the  other  verses  of  this  section. 
They  are  not  agreed  whether  vs.  1-4,  which  record  the 
sons  of  Keturah,  belong  to  P,  J,  or  E.  Astruc  was  at 
least  consistent  in  referring  all  genealogies  of  nations  and 
tribes  outside  of  the  chosen  race  to  a  document  or  docu- 
ments distiDct  from  P  and  J.  Noldeke  is  equally  con- 
sisteut  in  ascribing  all  the  genealogies  in  Genesis  to  P, 
and  finding  some  remarkable  numerical  correspondences, 
which  tend  to  confirm  his  view.  But  there  is  no  consist- 
ency in  referring  Keturah's  descendants  to  one  document 
(J  or  E)  and  Ishmael's  to  another  (P),  though  they  are 
combined  together  and  a  common  disposition  made  of 
both  in  ver.  6.  The  various  genealogies  of  this  book  are 
inserted  upon  a  uniform  plan,  which  binds  them  all  to- 
gether, and  shows  that  they  must  all  be  attributed  to  the 
same  source.  In  addition  to  the  direct  line  which  is 
traced  from  Adam  to  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  the  heads 
respectively  of  the  several  tribes  of  Israel,  all  the  lateral 
lines  of  descent  are  introduced,  each  in  its  proper  place, 
and  then  dropped,  thus  indicating  at  once  their  relation 
to,  and  their  separateness  from,  the  chosen  race. 

"And  Abraham  took  another  wife"  (lit.,  added  and 


308  THE   GENEKATIONS    OF   TERAII 

took  a  wife,  ver.  1)  contains  an  implied  reference  to 
Sarah's  death,  alluded  to  in  the  immediately  preceding 
verse  (xxiv.  67),  and  recorded  in  ch.  xxiii.  P.  Dillmann 
would  be  inclined  to  refer  this  verse  to  the  author  of  ch. 
xxiii.,  were  it  not  that  P  nowhere  else  uses  the  word 
"added."  But  as  that  is  the  customary  way  of  saying 
in  Hebrew  that  a  person  did  again  what  he  had  done  be- 
fore, it  is  difficult  to  see  why  any  Hebrew  writer  might 
not  use  the  word  if  he  had  occasion. 

As  Abraham  reached  the  age  of  one  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-five (ver.  7),  there  is  no  difficulty  in  his  marriage 
with  Keturah  standing  where  it  does,  after  the  death  of 
Sarah  and  the  marriage  of  Isaac.  The  critics,  who  sun- 
der P  from  J  and  E,  and  insist  that  the  narratives  of  the 
latter  have  no  connection  with  the  chronology  of  the 
former,  seek  a  discrepancy  here,  and  claim  that  in  JE 
the  marriage  with  Keturah  must  have  preceded  the  birth 
of  Isaac.  But  the  advanced  age  of  Abraham  and  Sarah, 
in  consequence  of  which  offspring  could  not  be  expected 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  is  as  plain  in  P  (xvii. 
17)  as  in  JE  (xviii.  11-14;  xxi.  7).  But  the  promise 
(xvii.  4-6)  that  Abraham  should  be  exceedingly  fruitful 
and  the  father  of  many  nations,  looks  be3^ond  the  birth 
of  Isaac,  and  finds  its  fulfilment  in  other  descendants  as 
well.  This,  like  most  other  alleged  discrepancies,  is 
found  not  in  the  text  itself,  but  in  arbitrary  critical  as- 
sumptions. 

The  supplementary  critics,  who  conceived  of  J  as  en- 
larging P  by  additions  of  his  own,  had  no  difficulty  in 
letting  P  have  xxv.  5,  though  xxiv.  36b  was  J's.  But  if 
J  is  an  independent  document,  the  identity  of  the  verses 
makes  it  necessary  to  attribute  both  to  the  same  source, 
and  xxv.  5  must  belong  to  J.  This  statement  that 
"  Abraham  gave  all  that  he  had  unto  Isaac,"  would  seem 
to  carry  with  it  the  counter-statement  of  what  became  of 


CONCLUSION   OF   ABRAHAM'S   LIFE  (CH.  XXY.  1-11)     309 

liis  other  children.  So  Dillmann  argued  in  the  first  and 
second  editions  of  his  "  Genesis,"  and  referred  ver.  6  to 
J  likewise.  And  if  J  spoke  in  this  verse  of  Abraham's 
"concubines,"  he  must  have  given  an  account  of  Keturah 
as  well  as  of  Hagar,  and  accordingly  have  been  the 
author  of  vs.  1-4.  But  on  the  other  hand,  ver.  1  calls  her 
a  "  wife,"  and  ver.  6a"  concubine  ; "  to  prevent  this  im- 
aginary conflict  he  first  assumed  that  vs.  1-4  was  from  P, 
but  worked  over  by  R  into  conformity  Avith  J  ;  then  that 
it  was  impossible  to  decide  from  which  source  vs.  1-4 
was  taken ;  and  finally,  in  his  third  edition,  he  gives  ver. 
6  to  E,  and  vs.  1-4  to  E,  though  why  E  should  be  so 
interested  in  this  particular  genealogy,  when  he  gives  no 
other,  is  not  clear.  This  looks  like  a  shift  to  get  rid  of 
a  troublesome  paragraph,  which  is  assigned  to  E,  not  be- 
cause of  any  particular  afiinity  with  that  document,  but 
it  must  go  somewhere,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  other 
place  to  put  it.  Keturah  is  called  a  wife  just  as  Hagar 
is  (xvi.  3),  without  at  all  designing  to  put  either  of  them 
on  a  par  with  Sarah  ;  so  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  in 
their  being  likewise  called  concubines,  and  no  need  of 
assuming  a  different  writer  on  this  account.  Ver.  11  is 
of  necessity  assigned  to  P ;  but  its  last  clause  speaks  of 
Isaac's  dwelling  by  Beer-lahai-roi,  which  is  a  plain  allu- 
sion to  xvi.  14  ;  xxiv.  62  J  ;  hence  the  offending  clause 
must  be  exscinded  or  transferred  to  another  context  and 
attached  to  J.  Thus  the  whole  section  is  chopped  into 
bits,  and  parcelled  among  the  several  documents  and  the 
redactor,  though  it  is  consistent  and  continuous  through- 
out and  linked  to  what  precedes  as  a  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham  (xvii.  4,  5,  P).  But  if  P  were 
allowed  to  have  ver.  6,  an  opportunity  would  be  missed 
of  creating  an  ap]3arent  divergence  by  inferring  from  ver. 
9  what  is  not  in  it,  that  Ishmael  continued  to  live  with  his 
father  to  the  time  of  his  death,  contrary  to  xxi.  14-21  E. 


310  THE   GENERATION'S   OF  TERAS 

In  ver.  11  it  is  stated  that  "  after  the  death  of  Abraham 
Elohim  blessed  Isaac,  his  sou."  Jehovah  as  the  guar- 
dian and  benefactor  of  the  chosen  race  would  certainly 
have  been  appropriate  here.  And  yet  Elohim  is  appro- 
priate likewise  as  suggestive  of  the  general  divine  benef- 
icence, which  bestowed  upon  Isaac  abundant  external 
prosperity.  There  is  no  reason  accordingly  for  assum- 
ing that  the  word  is  suggestive  of  the  peculiarity  of  a 
particular  writer. 

MARKS   OF   P   (in   VS.    7-lla) 

1.  Age  of  Abraham,  ver.  7.  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of 
P,  No.  2,  ch.  xvi.,  No.  1. 

2.  "  The  statement  that  Ishmael  was  still  with  Abra- 
ham (ver.  9)."  No  such  statement  is  here  made  or  im- 
plied. Ishmael's  presence  at  Abraham's  burial  is  not 
inconsistent  with  his  residence  elsewhere  (xxi.  21) ;  so 
that  this  affords  no  ground  for  assuming  a  diversity  of 
documents. 

3.  "  The  cave  of  Machpelah  (ver.  9),  the  diffuseness  of 
the  style  (vs.  9,  10),  the  children  of  Heth  (ver.  10)." 
The  expressions  in  these  verses  are  borrowed  from  ch. 
xxiii.,  the  formality  and  precision  of  the  language  indi- 
cating the  stress  laid  upon  this  first  acquisition  of  prop- 
erty in  Canaan. 

4.  yia  give  tip  the  ghost.  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  18.' 

5.  liBy'bi?  S]PSI3  tvas  gathered  unto  his  people,  a  jDhrase 
used  only  of  the  death  of  the  following  venerated  men, 
viz. :  Abraham  (xxv.  8) ;  Ishmael  (ver.  17)  ;  Isaac  (xxxv. 
29) ;  Jacob  (xlix.  29,  33) ;  Aaron  (Num.  xx.  24,  20,  ellip- 
sis), and  Moses  (Num.  xxvii.  13  ;  xxxi.  2 ;  Deut.  xxxii. 
50).  These  are  all  referred  to  P  for  the  reason  that  the 
records  of  the  deaths  of  patriarchs  are  as  a  rule  referred 


CONCLUSION   OF  ABRAHAM'S  LIFE  (Oil.  XXV.   1-11)      311 

to  liim.  The  formula  henceforth  used  of  the  death  of 
patriarchs  is  in  the  full  form  adopted  here,  "gave  up 
the  ghost  and  died,  and  was  gathered  to  his  j)eople  "  (xxv. 
8,  17  ;  XXXV.  29  ;  xlix.  33).  This  formula  is  not  used  in 
the  case  of  any  other  whose  death  is  recorded  by  P; 
yet  no  critic  infers  a  difference  of  writers  on  this  ac- 
count. The  same  thought  is  expressed  in  words  spoken 
by  the  Lord  to  Abraham  (xv.  15),  "  go  to  thy  fathers," 
assigned  by  the  critics  to  JE,  but  joined  as  here  with  the 
phrase,  "  in  a  good  old  age,"  which  speaks  for  the  iden- 
tity of  the  writers.  Dillmann  can  only  account  for  the 
coincidence  by  the  interference  of  B  in  ch.  xv. 

6.  "^^T}  12©  I'Q';'  days  of  the  years  of  the  life  {Yei\  7).  See 
ch.  xxiii.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  5. 

7.  "The  back  reference  of  xlix.  31  P  to  ver.  10;  "  this 
is  freely  admitted  to  be  from  the  same  writer ;  but  this 
implies  no  admission  that  other  parts  of  Genesis  are 
from  a  difierent  hand. 

The  descent  attributed  to  Sheba  and  Dedan  (ver.  3), 
involves  no  discrepancy  either  with  x.  7  P,  or  x.  28  J. 
See  under  ch.  x.,  pp.  137-139. 

For  the  use  of  "jb^  beget,  in  lateral  genealogies,  see  ch. 
vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  20,  The  critics  make  this  a 
mark  of  J,  yet  here  it  occurs  with  i211  and  the  sons  of 
(vs.  3,  4),  which  in  ch.  x.  they  make  a  mark  of  P. 

"  All  these  were  the  children  of  Keturah  "  (ver.  4 ;  cf.  x. 
29b  ;  ix.  19),  has  been  urged  in  proof  of  the  authorship 
of  J ;  but  the  same  formula  occurs  in  P  xlvi.  15,  18,  22, 
25. 


vn 


THE  GENERATIONS  OF  ISHMAEL  (CH.   XXV.    12-18) 

This  section  is  related  alike  to  passages  assigned  by 
the  critics  to  P,  J,  and  E  ;  hence  the  diversity  of  opinion 
among  them  as  to  its  origin.  It  is  generally  agreed  that 
the  title  (ver.  12a),  ver.  16b  "twelve  j)rinces  "  descended 
from  Ishmael  in  fulfilment  of  xvii.  20  P,  and  ver.  17 
with  the  phrases  of  ver.  8,  must  be  from  P.  Bnt  ver. 
12b  repeats  xxi.  9  E  (Dillmann  comj^ares  xvi.  3,  15  P)  ; 
the  mention  of  the  territory  occupied  b}'  the  tribes  de- 
scended from  Ishmael  (ver.  18),  is  after  the  analogy  of  x. 
19,  30,  J ;  "  he  abode  in  the  presence  of  all  his  brethren  " 
(ver.  18b),  is  in  fulfilment  of  xvi.  12  J,  and  adopts  its  lan- 
guage. Accordingly  Hupfeld  gives  vs.  18-16a,  18,  to  J. 
Kayser  gives  ver.  16b  likewise  to  J,  and  seems  inclined 
to  follow  Boehmer  in  ascribing  ver.  12  to  him  also,  in- 
asmuch as  the  title,  "  These  are  the  generations  of  Ish- 
mael," could  hardly  have  been  used  to  introduce  ver.  17, 
which  is  all  that  remains  for  P.  "  It  is  not  so  well  made 
out,"  he  says,  "  as  is  commonly  assumed,  that  this  title 
belongs  to  P  and  not  to  J."  Dillmann,  on  the  other 
hand,  feels  the  difiiculty  of  having  a  separate  P  title 
prefixed  to  but  one  or  two  verses,  and  claims  the  entire 
section  for  P  except  ver.  18.  The  first  clause  of  this 
verse  he  attributes  to  J,  and  attaches  to  ver.  6 ;  the  last 
clause  he  regards  as  a  gloss  based  upon  xvi.  12,  because 
the  singular  number  is  used,  while  the  preceding  clause 
has  the  plural.  But  no  such  conclusion  is  warranted  by 
this  change  of  number,  the  reason  for  which  is  obvious. 


ISHMAEL'S   descendants    (CII.  XXV.  13-18)        313 

To  make  the  reference  perfectly  distinct,  the  fulfilment 
is  stated  in  the  very  terms  of  the  prediction.  The 
region  occupied  by  Ishmael's  descendants  is  stated  in 
the  first  clause;  thus,  as  had  been  foretold,  Ishmael 
abode  in  the  presence  of  all  his  brethren.  There  is  no 
need  of  assuming  a  gloss  and  no  need  of  transposing  the 
verse  ;  no  one  would  ever  have  thought  of  doing  either, 
except  in  the  interest  of  the  divisive  hypothesis.  All  is 
appropriate  and  harmonious  as  it  stands, 

MARKS   OF  p 

1.  The  title  (ver.  12).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  1,  ch.  xvi.  No.  1. 

2.  The  statement  of  age  (ver.  17).  See  ch.  vi.-ix., 
Marks  of  P,  No.  2. 

3.  The  formulas  of  ver.  17.  See  ch.  xxv.  1-11,  Marks 
of  P,  No.  5. 

4.  The  mention  of  the  first-born  (ver.  13,  as  xxxv.  23 
P).  This  is  no  discriminating  test,  for  it  occurs  (x.  15, 
xxii.  21)  in  genealogies  attributed  to  J. 

5.  The  "twelve  princes"  (ver.  16 ;  cf.  xvii.  20).  This 
and  other  correspondences  point  to  the  common  author- 
ship of  related  passages,  but  aftbrd  no  ground  for  the 
belief  that  other  passages  are  from  a  different  source. 

The  territory  described  in  ver.  18  as  the  home  of  the 
Ishmaelites,  "  from  Havilah  unto  Sliur,  that  is  before 
Egypt,"  is  that  in  which  Saul  found  the  Amalekites  (1 
Sam.  XV.  7).  This  is  a  fresh  indication  of  the  blending 
of  these  roving  tribes,  of  which  we  have  already  seen 
evidence  in  the  occurrence  of  the  same  tribal  name  in 
different  genealogies,  e.g.,  Slieba  and  Dedan  (xxv.  3  and 
X.  7,  28),  and  which  is  further  evidenced  by  the  inter- 
change of  different  tribal  names  in  application  to  the 
same  parties  (Gen.  xxxvii.  28 ;  Judg.  viii.  1,  12,  24). 


YIII 

THE    GENEEATIONS   OF   ISAAC    (CH.    XXV.  19-XXXV.) 

This  section  contains  the  history  of  Isaac  and  his 
family  from  his  marriage  until  his  death. 

ESAU  AND   JACOB   (CH.   XXV.  19-34) 

Vatee,  though  an  advocate  of  the  fragment  hypothesis, 
notes  ("Pentateuch,"  i.,  p.  244)  the  precise  correspond- 
ence in  the  arrangement  of  ch,  xxv.  and  ch.  xxxv.-xxxvii., 
which  is  certainly  indicative  of  unity  of  plan.  1,  Abra- 
ham's sons  by  Keturah  (xxv.  1-6) ;  2,  his  death  and 
burial  by  his  sons  Isaac  and  Ishmael  (vs.  7-11)  ;  3,  the 
descendants  of  Ishmael  (vs.  12-18) ;  4,  the  history  of 
Isaac's  family  (vs.  19  sqq.).  In  like  manner  :  1,  Jacob's 
sons  by  his  several  wives  (xxxv.  23-26)  ;  2,  Isaac's  death 
and  burial  by  his  sons  Esau  and  Jacob  (vs.  27-29)  ;  3, 
the  descendants  of  Esau  (ch.  xxxvi.) ;  4,  the  history  of 
Jacob's  family  (ch.  xxxvii.  sqq.). 

It  should  be  observed  also  how  closely  this  portion  of 
the  history  is  knit  to  what  precedes  as  well  as  to  what 
follows.  The  life  of  Abraham  repeats  itself  in  that  of 
Isaac,  in  the  renewal  of  the  same  divine  promises,  in  the 
trial  of  faith  by  a  long  waiting  for  the  expected  child  on 
whom  the  fulfilment  of  every  other  promise  hinged  ;  in 
the  divine  intervention  manifest  in  the  birth  ;  in  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  child  of  divine  choice  and  the  re- 
jected first-born  ;  in  the  care  taken  that  the  marriage  of 
the  former  should  be,  not  with  one  of  the  surrounding 


ESAU   AND   JACOB    (CH.  XXV.   19-34)  315 

Canaanites,  but  with  one  of  an  allied  race  ;  in  Isaac's  be- 
traying the  same  sinful  weakness  under  temptation  as  his 
father ;  and  in  the  divine  protection  and  blessing  which 
compelled  the  recognition  even  of  monarchs.  The  same 
ideas  are  made  prominent,  the  same  leading  principles 
rule  throughout  the  whole. 

It  was  twenty-five  years  after  Abraham  entered  Ca- 
naan before  Isaac  was  born  (xii.  4 ;  xxi.  5).  It  was 
twenty  years  after  Isaac's  marriage  before  the  birth  of 
Jacob  and  Esau  (xxv.  20,  26).  Their  birth  is  traced  to 
an  immediate  divine  bestowment  of  what  was  beyond  all 
natural  expectation.  It  had  been  promised  to  Abraham 
that  he  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations ;  two  na- 
tions were  to  spring  from  Eebekah.  As  Isaac  was  pre- 
ferred to  Ishmael,  so  Jacob  to  Esau.  And  though  these 
latter  were  from  the  same  mother,  the  divine  choice  Avas 
made  apparent  from  the  first,  was  independent  of  per- 
sonal worth,  and  was  finally  ratified,  not  through  the  un- 
worthy means  taken  to  secure  it,  but  in  spite  of  them. 
It  was  thus  plainly  shown  to  be  of  divine  grace,  not  of 
human  merit.  And  at  length,  by  providential  discipline, 
supplanting  Jacob  was  changed  into  prevailing  Israel. 

Tuch,  in  defending  the  supplement  hypothesis,  attrib- 
uted the  whole  of  this  paragraph  (vs.  19-34)  to  P, 
save  only  vs.  21  (except  the  last  clause),  22,  23,  where 
the  repeated  occurrence  of  Jehovah  betrayed  the  hand  of 
J,  who  inserted  in  the  work  of  P,  which  lay  before  him 
and  which  he  was  supplementing,  this  forecast  of  the  fut- 
ure history  of  Kebekah's  descendants  before  the  chil- 
dren were  born.  It  was  inconceivable,  he  urged,  that  a 
history  of  the  ancestry  of  Israel  should  say  nothing  of 
the  birth  of  Jacob,  the  progenitor  of  the  nation,  and  of 
his  twin  brother  Esau,  by  whom  the  course  of  Jacob's 
life  was  so  largely  influenced. 

This  difficulty  presses^the  current  divisive  hypothesis 


316  THE   GENEEATIONS    OF   ISAAC 

in  an  aggravated  form,  which  attempts  to  make  out  three 
independent  documents,  without  being  able  to  maintain 
the  show  of  continuity  for  any  one  of  them.  To  P  are 
assigned  only  vs.  19,  20,  and  the  last  clause  of  ver.  26. 
He  accordingly  tells  how  old  Isaac  was  when  he  was 
married,  though  no  previous  account  had  been  given  by 
P  of  his  marriage ;  also  how  old  he  was  when  "  they 
were  born,"  presumably  his  children,  though  this  is  not 
said,  and  there  is  no  direct  mention  of  their  birth  such 
as,  it  is  here  implied,  had  been  made.  The  critics  tell 
us  that  P  must  have  told  about  Isaac's  marriage  and  the 
birth  of  his  sons,  but  E,  has  not  seen  fit  to  preserve  that 
part  of  his  record.  P  then  springs  at  once  to  Esau's 
marriage  at  forty  years  of  age  (xxvi.  34,  35),  and  Jacob's 
being  sent  to  Paddan-aram  for  a  wife  (xxviii.  1  sqq.), 
whereupon  Esau  marries  again.  Three  disconnected 
clauses  follow,  relating  to  persons  abruptly  introduced 
with  no  intimation  that  they  were  in  any  way  connected 
ynth.  Jacob  :  (xxix.  24)  "  And  Laban  gave  Zilpah  his 
handmaid  unto  his  daughter  Leah  for  her  handmaid  ;  " 
(ver.  29)  "  And  Laban  gave  to  Rachel  his  daughter  Bil- 
hah  his  handmaid  to  be  her  handmaid ; "  (xxx.  22a) 
"  And  God  remembered  Eachel."  Then  (xxxi.  18) 
"  He,"  presumably  Jacob,  though  his  name  is  not  men- 
tioned, "  carried  away  all  his  cattle  and  all  his  substance 
which  he  had  gathered,  the  cattle  of  his  getting,  which 
he  had  gathered  in  Paddan-aram,  for  to  go  to  Isaac  his 
father  unto  the  land  of  Canaan."  And  this  is  absolutely 
all  that  P  has  to  say  about  Jacob  from  the  time  that  he 
left  his  father's  house  until  his  return  to  Canaan.  There 
is  no  mention  of  his  arrival  in  Paddan-aram,  or  of  any- 
thing that  occurred  there,  only  that  he  left  it  possessed 
of  property  and  cattle  with  no  previous  allusion  to  his 
having  acquired  them.  He  went  to  Paddan-aram  to  seek 
a  wife  ;  but  there  is  no  intimation  whether  his  search 


ESAU   AKD   JACOB    (CH.    XXV.    19-34)  317 

was  successful  until  several  years  after  he  had  been  again 
settled  in  Canaan,  when  a  bald  list  is  given  of  his  wives 
and  childi-en  in  connection  with  the  mention  of  Isaac's 
death  (xxxv.  22b-29j. 

Wellhausen  may  well  call  this  a  "  skeleton  account." 
And  it  is  suitably  characterized  by  Dr.  Harper  ^  as  "cold 
and  Kfeless,  nothing  but  a  register  of  deaths,  births,  and 
marriages  ;  "  and  he  might  have  added  with  the  princi- 
pal births  and  mamages  left  out.  Is  this  P's  fault  or 
that  of  the  critics  ?  Can  such  scattered  snatches  be  re- 
garded as  constituting  a  separate  document,  or  even  ac- 
cepted as  proof  that  they  are  the  remains  of  a  separate 
document,  especially  when  these  fragments  are  essential 
in  the  context  in  which  they  are  now  found,  and  their 
removal  leaves  unfilled  gaps  behind  them  ?  And  is  the 
title,  "  The  generations  of  Isaac,"  intended  to  introduce 
these  disconnected  fragments,  or  the  body  of  the  narra- 
tive to  which  it  is  prefixed  ?  If  the  latter,  we  have  here 
one  more  proof  that  these  titles  to  sections  of  the  book 
of  Genesis  do  not  belong  to  what  the  critics  are  pleased 
to  call  the  document  P. 

But  after  P's  portion  of  vs.  19-34  is  subtracted,  the 
critics  still  find  the  remainder  not  a  unit,  and  yet  very 
diflicult  to  disentangle.  Wellhausen  says  that  J  and  E 
are  here  and  in  ch.  xxvii.  so  involved  "  that  a  clear  sep- 
aration is  not  to  be  thought  of."  "  Only  Avhere  the  di- 
vine names  supply  a  criterion  can  the  double  stream  be 
distinctly  recognized."  As  in  vs.  29-34  Esau  sells  his 
birthright  of  his  own  accord,  while  in  ch.  xxvii.  his  fa- 
ther's blessing  is  wrested  from  him  by  fraud,  it  has  been 
proposed  to  assign  these  to  separate  documents.  But, 
as  Wellhausen  contends,  it  will  neither  answer  to  give 
the  former  to  E  and  the  latter  to  J,  nor  to  reverse  this 
by  giving  the  former  to  J  and  the  latter  to  E.  For 
'  The  Hebraica  for  Jnly,  1889,  p.  267. 


318  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

Esau's  voluntary  surrender  of  liis  birthright  would  not 
account  for  Jacob's  flight  from  home  (xxviii.  10  sqq.). 
Both  J  and  E  presuppose  a  hostility  on  the  part  of  Esau 
such  as  can  only  be  explained  by  what  is  related  in  ch. 
xxvii.  Moreover,  xxvii.  36  refers  back  to  the  matter  of 
the  birthright.  Hence,  though  Wellhausen  claims  that 
in  the  oral  tradition  the  obtaining  of  the  birthright 
(mos)  and  of  the  blessing  (HDin)  are  mere  variants,  of 
which  he  offers  no  proof,  he  nevertheless  admits  that  in 
their  written  form  one  is  no  mere  substitute  for  the 
other,  but  the  first  is  a  prelude  to  the  second. 

Wellhausen  proposes  to  give  vs.  29-34  the  sale  of  the 
birthright  to  J.  The  contrast  drawn  between  Esau  and 
Jacob  (vs.  27,  28),  and  the  preferences  of  their  parents 
for  them  respectively,  are  preparatory  for  ch.  xxvii.,  and 
presupposed  in  both  J  and  E,  and  must  have  been  in 
substance  in  both  documents.  Vs.  21-23  is  given  to  J 
because  of  "  Jehovah ; "  vs.  24r-26a  to  E,  because  the 
allusion  in  Hos.  xii.  3  to  Jacob  taking  his  brother  by  the 
heel  proves  that  this  tradition  was  current  in  the  north- 
ern kingdom  of  Israel,  to  which  E  is  imagined  to  have 
belonged,  and  because  ver.  25  suggests  a  different  ex- 
planation of  Edom  from  that  given  in  ver.  30,  and  in  ver. 
26  Jacob  is  explained  differently  from  xxvii.  36  J.  But 
thus  J  records  the  conception  of  the  children  and  the 
prediction  respecting  them,  but  does  not  speak  of  their 
birth.  It  thus  becomes  necessary  to  supj)ose  that  each 
document  had  originally  what  is  contained  in  the  other, 
only  K  has  not  seen  fit  to  preserve  it. 

A  continuous  and  closely  connected  paragraph  is  thus 
splintered  into  bits  to  find  material  for  three  documents, 
each  of  which  proves  to  be  incoherent  and  fragmentary. 
The  different  allusions  to  the  significance  of  the  names 
Edom  and  Jacob  afford  no  justification  for  the  partition, 
since  they  are  not  variant  etymologies  implying  different 


ESAU   AND   JACOB    (CH.    XXV.    19-34)  319 

conceptions  of  the  origin  of  the  names  and  requiring  the 
assumption  of  distinct  writers. 

In  his  second  edition  Dillmann  adopts  substantially 
the  partition  of  AVellhausen,  though  in  his  first  he  had 
referred  the  entire  paragraph  (P  excepted)  to  E,  worked 
over  by  E,  and  in  his  third  he  refers  it  to  J,  only  the 
word  "  red  "  (ver.  25),  and  a  few  words  in  ver.  27,  having 
been  taken  from  E.  From  all  this  it  may  be  inferred 
that  the  critical  machinery  does  not  work  very  smoothly 
in  this  instance. 

It  has  been  alleged  that  Eebekah's  going  to  inquire 
of  Jehovah  (ver.  22)  implies  that  there  were  then  places 
where  oracular  responses  were  given,  or  seers  through 
whom  the  deity  could  be  consulted.  Wellhausen  pro- 
poses to  transpose  this  paragraph  after  ch,  xxvi.,  where 
he  finds  in  vs.  23-33  the  founding  of  a  sanctuary  at 
Beersheba  ;  and  he  jumps  to  the  conclusion  that  Eebekah 
went  to  it  to  inquire  of  Jehovah.  Stade  '  regards  the  in- 
cident here  recorded  of  Eebekah  as  "  probably  a  saga 
respecting  the  origin  of  the  oracle  at  Beersheba."  But 
there  is  no  suggestion  here  or  elsewhere  in  the  patri- 
archal period  of  an  oracle  or  a  seer.  And  there  is  not 
the  slightest  reason  for  supposing  that  either  is  referred 
to  in  the  present  instance,  much  less  of  assuming  that 
this  passage  lends  approval  to  the  separatist  sanctuary, 
which  was  in  later  ages  established  at  Beersheba,  Ha- 
vernick  appeals  to  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6,  which  shows  that 
those  who  "  inquired  of  Jehovah  "  might  be  answered  by 
dreams  as  well  as  by  Urim  and  by  prophets.  From  the 
frequency  with  which  prophetic  dreams  are  mentioned 
in  Genesis,  and  from  the  fact  that  the  answer  of  Jehovah 
was  given  to  Eebekah  herself,  it  is  natural  to  infer  that 
the  revelation  was  made  to  her  in  a  dream.  They  who 
dispute  the  reality  of  predictive  prophecy  find  here  a 
'  Geschiclite  des  Volkes  Israel,  p.  474,  note. 


320  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

vaticinium  2'>ost  evenhon,  and  an  indication  of  post-Mosaic 
origin.  But  those  wlio  do  not  accept  the  premises  will 
not  share  the  conclusion. 

It  is  argued  that  Isaac  could  not  have  passed  Eebekah 
off  as  his  sister  (xxvi.  7)  after  her  children  were  born 
and  had  grown  up  (sxv.  27).  This  does  not  necessarily 
follow.  Still,  even  if  xxvi.  1-33  preceded  xxv.  21-34 
in  point  of  time,  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  suppose 
that  the  narratives  have  been  transposed.  The  histo- 
rian is  not  an  annalist.  He  may  depart  from  the  chron- 
ological arrangement  when  he  has  good  reasons  for 
grouping  events  differently.  Whatever  motive  the  re- 
dactor may  be  thought  to  have  had  for  transposing  these 
incidents  may  equally  have  influenced  the  original  writer 
to  place  them  in  their  present  order. 

The  divine  name  is  properly  and  discriminatingly  em- 
ployed in  vs.  21-23.  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Isaac  no 
less  than  of  Abraham.  It  is  to  Jehovah  that  he  directs 
his  prayer ;  it  is  to  Jehovah  that  his  wife  applies  in  her 
perplexity.  It  is  Jehovah  who  gives  to  each  a  gracious 
answer. 

MARKS   OF   P  (vs.  19,  20,  26b) 

1.  The  title  (ver.  19).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  1. 

2.  Age  (vs.  20,  26).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  2. 

3.  ^ibin  beget  (ver.  19).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No,  20.' 

4.  Paddan-aram  (ver.  20) ;  occurs  besides  in  P  xxviii. 
2,  5-7 ;  XXXV.  9,  26  ;  in  xxxi.  18,  xxxiii.  18,  it  is  as- 
signed to  P  in  a  JE  connection  ;  in  xlvi.  15  the  critics 
are  not  agreed  whether  it  belongs  to  P.  See  ch.  xxiv., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

5.  Bethuel,  the  Aramaean  (ver.  20).    Bethuel  the  father 


ESAU   AND   JACOB   (CH.   XXV.    19-34)  321 

and  Laban  tlie  brother  of  Eebekah  are  here  called  Ara- 
maeans, in  contrast  with  the  Canaanites,  with  whom 
Isaac  was  not  to  ally  himself ;  so  for  a  like  reason  in 
xxviii.  5  P,  though  not  in  ver.  2  P,  where  the  same  end 
is  accomplished  by  calling  Bethuel  the  father  and  Laban 
the  brother  of  Jacob's  mother.  Laban  is  also  called  the 
Aramaean  in  E  (xxxi.  20,  24)  ;  and  he  is  spoken  of  with- 
out this  epithet  in  P  (xlvi.  18,  25).  Moreover,  Bethuel 
and  Laban  were  Aramaeans  according  to  J,  since  they 
lived  in  Ai-am-naharaim  (xxiv.  10  J).  The  employment 
or  non-employment  of  the  epithet  Aramaean  in  connection 
with  theii'  names  is  dependent,  therefore,  not  upon  the 
usage  of  particular  documents,  but  upon  the  sense  to  be 
conveyed. 

MARKS   OF   J 

1.  nin:?  entreat  (ver.  21) ;  nowhere  else  in  Genesis ;  only 
besides  in  the  Hexateuch,  Ex.  viii.  4,  5,  24,  25,  26  (E. 
v.,  vs.  8,  9,  28,  29,  30) ;  x.  18,  all  which  are  referred 
to  J. 

2.  -I'lS^S  younger  (ver.  23).  See  ch.  xix.  29-38,  Marks 
of  J,  No.' 2. 

3.  "  The  similarity  of  vs.  24-26  to  xxxviii.  27  sqq."  may 
be  an  indication  of  the  common  authorship  of  these  pas- 
sages, but  gives  no  proof  that  other  passages  are  from  a 
different  author. 

Dillmann  claims  that  vs.  25  and  27  are  "  overloaded " 
by  the  insertion  of  words  from  an  assumed  parallel  ac- 
count by  E.  In  proof  of  this  he  points  to  "red  "  (ver.  25), 
as  an  explanation  of  Edom,  conflicting  with  that  in  ver. 
30,  and  the  duplicate  characterization  of  both  Edom  and 
Jacob,  ver.  27.  But  this  "  overloading  "  never  seems  to 
have  dawned  upon  DiUmann  himself  until  he  hit  upon 
this  expedient  for  providing  at  least  a  semblance  of  ma- 
terial for  E  in  a  paragraph  which,  as  he  now  confesses, 
21 


322  THE   GENEKATIONS    OF    ISAAC 

"  coheres  well  together,"  but  the  contents  of  which  are 
presupposed  alike  in  E  and  in  J. 

Dillmann  remarks  upon  the  indefinite  singular,  "  one 
called  "  (ver.  26),  contrasted  with  the  plural,  "  thej  called" 
(ver.  25),  as  suggestive  of  a  difierent  document ;  but  Hup- 
feld  points  to  the  frequent  use  of  the  indefinite  singular 
in  passages  attributed  to  J,e.g.,xi.  9;  xvi.  14;  xxvii.  36; 
xxxiii.  17;  xxxviii.  29,  30. 

ISAAC   IN   GEEAR  AND   BEEESHEBA    (CH.    XXVI.    1-33) 

This  chapter  (except  vs.  34,  35,  P),  is  in  the  main  as- 
signed to  J,  but  unfilled  gaps  are  thus  created  in  both 
the  other  documents.  We  look  in  vain  in  P  for  a  di\ane 
grant  of  the  land  to  Isaac,  such  as  is  referred  to  in  xxxv. 
12  P,  or  for  a  covenant  of  God  with  him  mentioned  Ex. 
ii.  24  P,  or  for  God  appearing  to  him  as  he  is  declared 
to  have  done,  Ex.  vi.  3  '  P.  These  are  all  to  be  found  in 
the  chapter  before  us,  but  nowhere  else.  These  passages 
in  P  must,  therefore,  refer  to  what  is  contained  in  J, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  hypothesis,  or  it  must  be  as- 
sumed here  again  that  P  had  just  such  an  account  as  we 
find  in  J,  but  R  has  omitted  it.  So  when  E  (xlvi.  1) 
speaks  of  Jacob  coming  to  Beersheba  and  there  offering 
sacrifices  to  the  God  of  his  father  Isaac,  there  is  a  plain 
allusion  to  the  altar  which  Isaac  had  built  there  (xxvi. 
25).  When  Jacob  left  his  father's  house  for  Haran,  he 
went  out  from  Beersheba  (xxviii.  10  E),  implying  Isaac's 
residence  there,  as  stated  xxvi.  23,  25,  but  nowhere  in 
E.  Either  E  alludes  to  J,  or  he  must  have  related  the 
same  that  is  in  J,  and  R  has  not  preserved  it. 

When  w^e  thus  find  throughout  the  book  of  Genesis  the 

'  Jehovah's  revelation  of  himself  (xxvi.  24)  as  the  God  of  Abraham 
contains  a  specific  allusion  to  xvii.  1,  and  was  so  understood  hy  Isaac 
(xxviii.  3,  4). 


ISAAC   IN   GERAR   (CH.   XXVI.    1-33)  323 

different  documents  tied  together  by  cross-references, 
does  not  the  divisive  hypothesis  require  too  many  auxil- 
iary hypotheses  for  its  support  ?  It  asks  us  in  every  in- 
stance to  assume  that  the  reference  is  not  to  the  passage 
which  is  plainly  written  before  us,  and  to  which  it  ex- 
actly corresponds,  but  to  certain  hypothetical  passages 
which  may  once  have  existed,  but  of  which  there  is  no 
other  evidence  than  that  the  exigencies  of  the  hypothe- 
sis demand  it. 

A  doublet  is  suspected  in  vs.  1-6.  It  is  said  that  2b 
is  incompatible  with  Ic  and  3a.  Isaac  is  already  in  the 
land  to  which  the  Lord  is  to  tell  him  to  go.  Accordingly 
la,  2b,  6,  are  assigned  to  E,  thus  :  "And  there  was  a  fam- 
ine in  the  land ;  and  (God)  said  to  (Isaac),  Go  not  down 
into  Egypt ;  dwell  in  the  land  which  I  shall  tell  thee  ;  and 
Isaac  dwelt  in  Gerar."  Then  Ic,  2a,  3a,  are  given  to  J, 
thus  :  "  And  Isaac  went  unto  Abimelech,  king  of  the 
Philistines,  unto  Gerar.  And  Jehovah  appeared  unto 
him  and  said,  Sojom-n  in  this  land,  and  I  will  be  Avith 
thee,  and  will  bless  thee."  But  the  fact  that  by  ingenious 
slicing  and  piecing  two  seemingly  complete  paragraphs 
can  be  constructed  out  of  one  does  not  prove  that  the 
latter  is  of  duplicate  origin.  The  apparent  lack  of  continu- 
ity which  gives  offence  to  the  critics  in  these  verses  is  of 
precisely  the  same  nature  as  that  in  xxiv.  29,  30,  which 
has  been  before  explained.  In  xxvi.  1  the  mention  of 
the  famine  is  immediately  followed  by  the  statement  that 
Isaac  went  to  Gerar  to  escape  it.  It  is  then  added  with 
more  particularity  how  he  came  to  make  his  abode  in 
Gerar,  instead  of  passing  on  to  Egypt  after  the  example 
of  his  father  in  similar  circumstances  (xii.  10),  and  accord- 
ing to  his  own  original  intention.  Jehovah  directed  him 
to  dwell  in  the  land  that  he  should  tell  him  of,  which  was 
immediately  explained  to  be  the  land  in  which  he  then 
was.     The  expHcit  allusion  to  the  "  first  famine  that  was 


324  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

in  the  days  of  Abraham  "  (lb),  is  stricken  from  the  text 
and  referred  to  R,  because  E  had  not  spoken  of  that 
famine ;  whereas  it  simply  proves  the  falsity  of  the  criti- 
cal partition  which  assigns  ver.  la  to  a  different  docu- 
ment from  xii.  10. 

Ys.  3b-5  is  also  exjDunged  as  a  later  addition  to  the 
text  for  two  reasons  : 

1st.  In  order  to  get  rid  of  its  testimony  in  favor  of  xxii. 
15-18,  which  the  critics  attribute  to  E ;  because  if  here  re- 
ferred to  and  cited  by  J  it  must  be  genuine  and  original. 

2d.  Because  the  legal  phrases  in  ver.  5  are  inappropri- 
ate to  the  times  of  the  patriarchs. 

But  (1)  this  verse  is  in  exact  accord  with  others  which 
show  gi'eat  solicitude  to  make  it  clear  that  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  chosen  of  Jehovah,  not  to  be  his  favorites 
irrespective  of  character,  but  to  found  a  pious,  God-fear- 
ing, obedient  race  (xvii.  1,  2  ;  xviii.  19). 

(2)  Mention  is  made  of  several  divine  injunctions  given 
to  Abraham.  He  was  commanded  to  leave  his  country, 
to  perform  specified  rites  in  the  transaction  of  the  cove- 
nant, to  institute  circumcision,  to  offer  up  Isaac.  He 
was  required  to  exercise  faith  in  God's  j^romises  in  spite 
of  long  delays  and  discouraging  circumstances.  He  ob- 
served sacrificial  worship  and  called  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  He  recognized  the  sanctity  of  an  oath  (xiv.  22), 
and  dealt  generously  with  Lot,  uprightly  with  the  chil- 
dren of  Heth  and  Abimelech,  and  in  the  strictest  honesty 
with  the  king  of  Sodom.  The  direction  to  walk  before 
God  and  be  perfect  (xvii.  1  ;  xxiv.  40),  and  his  confidence 
that  God  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  would  do  right  in  re- 
spect to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  (xviii.  25),  imply 
his  possession  of  a  standard  of  rectitude.  So,  although 
no  formal  code  may  have  been  given  to  Abraham,  it  is 
not  inappropriate  to  speak  of  "  commandments,  statutes, 
and  laws,"  which  he  had  obeyed. 


ISAAC   IN   GERAR   (CH.    XXVI.    1-83)  326 

(3)  The  heaping  together  of  these  various  terms  is  cer- 
tainly suggestive  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  (cf.  Ex.  xv. 
26  ;  xvi.  28,  etc.).  And  what  is  more  natural  than  that 
the  great  legislator,  who  in  recording  the  history  of  their 
ancestors  had  prominent  regard  to  the  instruction  of  his 
contemporaries,  should  commend  the  obedience  of  Abra- 
ham in  terms  which  would  make  it  a  fit  model  for  them- 
selves ? 

Isaac's  life  was  to  such  an  extent  an  imitation  of  his 
father's  that  no  surprise  need  be  felt  at  his  even  copying 
his  faults  and  pretending  that  his  wife  was  his  sister  (vs. 
7-llj.  A  stratagem  that  has  proved  successful  once  is 
very  likely  to  be  tried  again. 

Nor  does  it  create  any  special  difficulty  in  respect  to 
the  recorded  visit  of  Abimelech  and  Phicol  to  Isaac  at 
Beersheba  (vs.  26-31)  that  a  king  and  general  of  the 
same  name  had  covenanted  at  the  same  place  with  Abra- 
ham (xxi.  22-32).  That  successive  Philistine  kings 
should  bear  the  name  Abimelech  is  no  more  strange 
than  the  Pharaohs  of  Egypt,  or  the  Caesars  of  Eome,  or 
two  Napoleons  emperors  of  France,  or  two  presidents  of 
the  United  States  named  John  Adams.  Phicol  may  for 
aught  that  anyone  knows  have  been  an  official  title,  or 
he  may  have  been  the  namesake  of  his  predecessor. 
That  the  name  Beersheba  should  be  reimposed  on  this 
occasion  (ver.  33)  is  not  strange.  That  the  writer  re- 
garded it  not  as  a  new  appellation,  but  as  fresh  sanction 
given  to  one  already  in  existence,  is  plain  from  his  use 
of  it  (ver.  23),  and  it  is  in  precise  accordance  with  the 
general  statements  (vs.  15,  18)  that  Isaac  had  renewed 
the  names  previously  given  to  wells  by  his  father. 
These  verses  are  interpolations  by  R  in  the  opinion  of 
the  critics,  for  the  reason  (which  others  may  not  deem 
conclusive)  that  J  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  referred 
to  what  is  recorded  in  E. 


326  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

The  name  Jehovah  is  eyidently  in  place  in  this  chapter. 
Jehovah  appears  to  Isaac  (vs.  2,  24) ;  and  Isaac  called  on 
the  name  of  Jehovah  (ver.  25).  Jehovah  blessed  him 
(ver.  12)  and  made  room  for  him  (ver.  22) ;  so  that  even 
Abimelech  recognized  the  fact  that  Isaac's  God  Jehovah 
was  with  him  (ver.  28),  and  blessed  him  (ver.  29),  In 
XXV.  11  it  had  been  said  that  Elohim  blessed  him.  This 
is  suggestive  of  the  two  aspects  under  which  his  out- 
ward prosperity  could  be  regarded  as  the  gift  of  his 
covenant  God,  or  of  the  God  of  nature  and  of  providence. 
This  is  no  more  surprising  than  when  the  Psalmist  makes 
his  appeal  in  successive  clauses  to  the  God  of  Israel  and 
the  God  of  the  universe  :  (Ps.  x.  12)  "  Arise,  O  Jehovah  ; 
O  Elohim,  lift  up  thine  hand."  (Ps.  xvii.  1,  6)  "  O  Je- 
hovah, attend  unto  my  cry ;  .  .  .  thou  wilt  hear  me, 
O  Elohim." 

MAEKS   OF  J 

1.  nxi'a  fi^y'^fair  to  look  upon  (ver.  7).  See  ch.  xxiv., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  13. 

2.  vi'^ptpn  look  out  (ver.  8).  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  6. 

3.  nbi?  oath  (ver.  28).  Besides  in  J  xxiv.  41  bis ;  in  P 
Lev.  v.'  i  ;  Num.  v.  21  bis,  23,  27  ;  in  D  Deut.  xxix.  11, 13, 
18,  19,  20  (E.  v.,  vs.  12,  14,  19,  20,  21) ;  xxx.  7 ;  all  in 
the  Hexateuch. 

4.  niri'i  ^^"na  blessed  of  Jehovah  (ver.  29) ;  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch besides  only  xxiv.  31  J ;  a  similar  phrase,  "  blessed 
of  God  Most  High  "  xiv.  19,  which  is  not  referred  to  J. 

5.  nin"!  D11J2  i?'^p'^1  called  upon  the  name  of  Jehovah  (ver. 
25).  Prayer  and  worship  were  addressed  to  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  revelation  and  of  grace.  This  divine  name 
is  the  appropriate  one  in  such  connections,  and  is  not 
traceable  to  the  usage  of  a  particular  document. 

6.  "  The  peril  of  Eebekah  (vs.  7-11),  and  the  origin  of 


Isaac  iisr  gerar  (ch.  xxvi.  i-33)  327 

the  name  Beersheba  "  (vs.  25-33)  are  not  variant  accounts 
of  the  transactions  recorded  in  ch.  xx.  and  xxi.  22-32,  but 
are  distinct  events  occurring  at  different  times  and  under 
other  circumstances.  Even  on  the  hypothesis  of  the 
critics  they  were  so  regarded  by  the  redactor.  If  they 
either  were,  or  were  supposed  to  be,  distinct  events,  there 
is  no  reason  why  they  may  not  have  been  related  by  the 
same  writer.  They  afford  no  ground,  consequently,  for 
the  assumption  of  separate  documents. 

Dillmann  remarks  that  in  this  chapter  "  much  in  the 
form  of  expression  reminds  of  E,  cf.  ver.  10  and  xx.  9; 
ver.  28  and  xxi.  22 ;  ver.  29  and  xxi.  23  ;  nilis-by  con- 
cerning (ver.  32  and  xxi.  11,  25) ;  the  names  (ver.  26)." 
He  undertakes  to  account  for  this  by  assuming  that  J  had 
the  document  E  before  him  and  borrowed  expressions 
from  it.  The  divisive  hypothesis  must  thus  be  supported 
by  a  fresh  hypothesis,  for  which  there  is  no  foundation 
but  the  very  hypothesis  which  it  is  adduced  to  support. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  admitted  points  of  similarity 
belong  to  the  narrative  of  Rebekah's  j)eril  and  the  affair 
at  Beersheba.  If  now  the  author  of  ch.  xxvi.  had  the  cor- 
responding narrative  in  chs.  xx.,  xxi.,  before  him  as  he 
wrote,  he  was  aware  that  Abraham  had  had  experiences 
similar  to  those  which  he  was  recording  of  Isaac.  And 
thus  the  argument  of  the  critics  for  a  diversity  of  docu- 
ments is  completely  nullified  by  their  own  confession. 
And  the  only  remaining  alternative  is  to  accept  the  sim- 
ple and  natural  inference,  fi'om  the  corres23ondences  be- 
tween the  narratives,  that  both  are  from  the  pen  of  the 
same  writer. 

It  is  also  worth  noting  that  "  digged,"  in  vs.  15,  18, 
32,  is  in  Hebrew  nsn,  but  in  ver.  25  it  is  rrns,  a  word 
which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  J,  and  is  only  found  in  the 
Hexateuch  in  E,  viz.,  Gen.  1.  5  ;  Ex.  xxi.  33 ;  Num.  xxi. 
18.     It  thus  appears  that  the  same  writer  can  use  two  , 


328  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

different  words  to  express  the  same  thing  with  no  appar- 
ent reason  for  making  the  change  ;  and  this  even  though 
in  the  opinion  of  the  critics  one  of  the  Avords  is  nowhere 
else  used  by  liim. 

Jacob's  blessing  and  departuee  (ch.  xxvi.  34-xxviii.  9) 

The  narrative  in  ch.  xxvii.  is  indispensable  to  both  J 
and  E,  as  shown  alike  by  its  connection  with  what  pre- 
cedes and  what  follows.  It  has  already  been  seen  that 
the  critics  jQnd  it  necessary  to  assume  that  xxv.  21-34 
belonged  alike  to  both  of  these  documents,  and  that  the 
portions  extracted  from  one  had  their  equivalents  also  in 
the  other.  But  this  paragraph  was  directly  preparatory 
to  ch.  xxvii.  The  pre-announcement  of  the  precedence  of 
the  younger  child  (ver.  23),  the  hairy  skin  of  Esau  (ver. 
25),  Esau's  skill  in  hunting  and  Jacob's  domestic  habits 
(ver.  27),  Isaac's  partiality  for  Esau,  and  relish  for  his 
venison,  and  Rebekah's  preference  for  Jacob  (ver.  28),  are 
mentioned  with  a  view  to  this  chapter,  and  the  sale  of 
the  birthright  (vs.  29-34)  is  explicitly  referred  to,  xxvii. 
36. 

In  like  manner,  as  is  stated  by  Wellhausen,  "  we  have 
in  xxviii.  10-22  a  piece  from  E  almost  complete,  together 
with  a  large  fragment  from  J,  which  proves  that  J  con- 
tained the  same  narrative  and  in  the  same  place  (cf,  ver. 
15  and  vs.  20,  21).  It  hence  follows  by  concluding  back- 
ward that  both  E  and  J  related  the  occasion  of  Jacob's 
flight,  without  which  it  would  be  without  a  motive  and 
unintelligible.  There  must  necessarily  have  been  a  his- 
tory like  that  in  ch.  xxvii.  in  both  sources,  as  appears 
also  from  ch.  xxxii. ;  "  and,  as  Dillmann  adds,  xxxv.  3, 
7,  E. 

While,  however,  it  is  essential  to  find  both  J  and  E  in 
this  chapter,  the  critics  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  that 


ISAAC   BLESSES   JACOB   (CH.    XXVI.   34-XXVIII.   9)      329 

they  cannot  disentangle  them  so  as  to  separate  the  two 
accounts,  or  even  to  discover  any  points  of  difference  be- 
tween them.  The  utmost  that  they  can  do  is  to  point 
out  several  instances  of  what  they  consider  doublets,  and 
claim  on  this  account  that  the  text  is  composite,  though 
they  are  unable  to  resolve  it  into  its  original  constitu- 
ents. 

It  is  claimed  that  vs.  24-27a  repeats  vs.  21-23  ;  that 
ver.  24,  instead  of  progressing  from  ver.  23,  goes  back  to 
ver.  21,  and  ver.  23  is  as  far  advanced  as  ver.  27a,  each 
ending,  "  and  he  blessed  him."  But  this  is  precisely 
like  other  alleged  doublets  before  reviewed.  The  ulti- 
mate result  is  first  summarily  stated  (ver.  23b)  ;  then 
further  particulars  are  added  (vs.  21r-27a),  which  led  up 
to  this  result.  The  paragraphs  in  question  are  mutually 
supplementary ;  they  are  certainly  not  mutually  exclu- 
sive. The  bhnd  old  patriarch,  doubtful  of  his  son's 
identity,  first  insists  upon  feeling  him  (vs.  21-23),  and 
obliges  him  to  say  whether  he  is  really  Esau  (ver.  24). 
Then,  after  partaking  of  what  had  been  brought  him,  he 
asks,  as  a  final  test,  to  kiss  him,  that  he  may  smell  the 
odor  of  his  raiment  (ver.  27).  There  is  in  all  this  no 
repetition,  but  a  steady,  onward  progTess  to  the  final 
issue. 

It  is  fm-ther  said  that  ver.  30b  repeats  30a,  which  it 
does  not ;  it  more  exactly  defijies  the  time  intended. 
Isaac  had  ended  his  blessing,  and  Jacob  had  just  gone 
out  when  Esau  came  in.  Also  that  vs.  35-38  repeat  vs. 
33,  34 ;  but  the  only  repetition  is  that  of  Esau's  impor- 
tunate entreaty,  which  is  as  natural  as  it  is  touching. 
Ver.  44b  is  repeated  in  ver.  45a,  because  this  was  the 
thing  uppermost  in  Rebekah's  thoughts.  She  repeats 
and  amplifies  what  she  had  said  about  Esau's  fury  sub- 
siding, in  order  to  impress  upon  Jacob  her  own  convic- 
tion that  his  brother's  rage  was  only  temporary.      If 


330  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

Jacob  would  but  absent  himself  for  a  few  days  it  would 
be  over,  and  she  would  send  and  fetch  him  home  again. 
She  is  concerned  to  present  her  project  to  him  in  the 
most  persuasive  way,  that  he  may  be  induced  to  do  Avhat 
she  feels  to  be  necessary  to  save  his  life. 

In  their  eagerness  to  find  material  for  separate  docu- 
ments, or  evidence  of  duplicate  accounts,  the  critics  seem 
to  be  ever  ready  to  sacrifice  the  force  and  beauty  of  the 
narratives  with  which  they  deal.  They  dissect  them  to 
the  quick,  rending  them  into  feeble  or  incoherent  frag- 
ments, or  they  pare  them  down  by  the  assumption  of 
doublets  to  the  baldest  forms  of  intelligible  statement, 
and  thus  strip  them  of  those  affecting  details,  which  lend 
them  such  a  charm,  because  so  true  to  nature.  This  in- 
volves the  absurdity  of  assuming  that  two  jejune  or  frag- 
mentary accounts,  pieced  mechanically  together,  have 
produced  narratives  which  are  not  only  consistent  and 
complete,  but  full  of  animation  and  dramatic  power. 

An  attempt  is  made  to  establish  a  difference  between 
J  and  E  on  the  one  hand,  and  P  on  the  other,  as  to  the 
reason  why  Jacob  went  to  Paddan-aram,  According  to 
the  former  (ch.  xxvii.  1-45),  it  is  to  flee  from  his  brother, 
whom  he  has  enraged  by  defrauding  him  of  his  father's 
blessing.  According  to  the  latter  (xxvi.  34,  35  ;  xxviii. 
1-9),  that  he  may  not  marry  among  the  Canaanites,  as 
Esau  had  done,  to  the  great  grief  of  his  parents,  but  ob- 
tain a  wife  from  among  his  kindred.  P,  we  are  told, 
knows  of  no  hostility  between  the  brothers.  But  all 
this  is  spoiled  by  the  statement  in  xxviii.  7,  that  "  Jacob 
obeyed  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  was  gone  to  Paddan- 
aram."  His  father  sent  him  to  get  a  wife  (xxviii.  1-9)  ; 
but  his  mother  (xxvii.  42-45)  to  escape  Esau's  fury  ;  and 
there  is  no  incompatibility  between  these  two  objects. 
In  order  to  gain  Isaac  over  to  her  plan  without  acquaint- 
ing him  with  Esau's  murderous  designs,  Rebekah  simply 


ISAAC   BLESSES   JACOB   (CH.    XXVI.  34-XXVIII.   9)      331 

urges  her  dissatisfaction  with  the  wives  of  Esau,  and  her 
apprehension  lest  Jacob  might  contract  a  similar  mar- 
riage with  some  one  of  the  daughters  of  the  land.  Isaac 
had  one  object  in  mind,  Kebekah  another.  There  is 
nothing  for  the  critics  to  do,  therefore,  but  to  pronounce 
the  unw^elcome  words,  "  and  his  mother,"  an  interpola- 
tion. In  order  to  prove  their  point  they  must  first  ad- 
just the  text  to  suit  it. 

But  tinkering  the  text  in  a  single  passage  will  not  re- 
lieve them  in  the  present  instance.  The  hostility  of 
Esau  is  embedded  in  the  entire  narrative,  and  cannot  be 
sundered  from  it.  Why  did  Jacob  go  alone  and  unat- 
tended in  quest  of  a  wife,  without  the  retinue  or  the 
costly  presents  for  his  bride,  befitting  his  rank  and 
wealth  ?  When  Abraham  desired  a  wife  for  Isaac  he 
sent  a  princely  embassy  to  woo  Rebekah,  and  conduct 
her  to  her  future  home.  Wliy  was  Jacob's  suit  so  dif- 
ferently managed,  although  Isaac  imitated  Abraham  in 
everything  else  ?  And  why  did  Jacob  remain  away 
from  his  parents  and  his  home,  and  from  the  land  sacred 
as  the  gift  of  God,  for  so  many  long  years  till  his  twelve 
sons  were  born  (xxxv.  26  P)  ?  This  is  wholly  unac- 
counted for  except  by  the  deadly  hostility  of  Esau.  Even 
the  fragmentary  notices  accorded  to  P  of  the  sojourn  in 
Paddan-aram  thus  imply  that  Jacob  had  grievously  of- 
fended Esau  ;  so  that  here  again  P  either  refers  to  what 
J  and  E  alone  recorded,  or  else  had  given  a  similar  ac- 
count of  the  fraud  perpetrated  by  Jacob,  which  R  has 
not  retained. 

The  name  Jehovah  occurs  appropriately  (xxvii.  7,  20) 
as  the  God  of  Isaac,  in  whose  name  and  by  W'hose  au- 
thority the  blessing  was  to  be  pronounced.  Only  in  the 
blessing  itself  Jehovah  alternates  with  Elohim  in  the 
parallelisms  of  poetry  (vs.  27,  28).  On  this  ground  Dill- 
mann  assigns  vs.  27b,  29b,  to  J,   and  vs.  28,  29a,  to  E. 


332  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

The  consequence  of  which  is  that  in  J  a  curse  is  pro- 
nounced upon  those  who  curse  Jacob,  and  a  blessing  upon 
those  who  bless  him,  but  not  a  single  blessing  bestowed 
directly  upon  Jacob  himself.  Kautzsch  tries  to  mend  the 
matter  bv  a  difierent  distribution ;  but  in  doing  so  he 
separates  the  last  clause  of  ver.  28  from  the  sentence  to 
which  it  belongs,  so  that  "  plenty  of  corn  and  wine  "  stands 
wholly  unconnected,  and,  of  course,  unmeaning.  No  criti- 
cal severance  of  this  closely  connected  blessing  is  either 
admissible  or  necessary.  Elohim,  in  ver.  28,  does  not  re- 
quire the  assumption  of  a  different  document  from  the 
Jehovah  of  ver.  27  any  more  than  such  an  assumption  is 
demanded  by  the  change  of  divine  names  in  Ps.  xlvii.  2, 
3  (E.  v.,  vs.  1,  2).  The  Jehovah  of  the  blessing  is  at  the 
same  time  the  God  of  universal  nature,  Elohim,  who 
from  his  general  beneficence  will  bestow  "  the  dew  of 
heaven,  and  the  fatness  of  the  earth,  and  plenty  of  corn 
and  wine."  In  taking  leave  of  Jacob  Isaac  pronounces 
upon  him  the  blessing  of  Abraham  (xxviii.  4)  ;  he  is  thus 
led  to  borrow  the  language  of  that  signal  revelation  to 
Abraham  when  Jehovah  made  himself  known  as  God 
Almighty  (xvii.  1),  and  gave  him  promises  with  a  special 
emphasis,  which  are  here  repeated.  Hence  the  El  Shad- 
dai  (ver.  3)  and  Elohim  (ver.  4). 

MARKS   OF   P   (XXVI.  34,  35  ;  XXVIII.  1-9) 

1.  "  The  unadorned  character  of  the  narration."  But 
in  what  respect  is  the  statement  of  Esau's  marriage 
(xxvi.  34,  35)  more  "  unadorned  "  than  that  of  Abram 
and  Nahor  (xi.  29  J),  or  Nahor's  family  table  (xxii.  20-24 
J)  ?  or  Isaac's  charge  and  commission  to  Jacob  (xxviii. 
1-5),  than  the  precisely  similar  one  of  Abraham  in  re- 
spect to  Isaac  (xxiv.  1-10)  ? 

2.  "  The  chronological  statement  (xxvi.  34)."  See  ch. 
vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  2;  ch.  xvi.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  1. 


ISAAC   BLESSES   JACOB   (CH.   XXVI.  34-XXVIII.  9)      333 

3.  ):^:2  ni22i  daughters  of  Canaan  (xxviii.  1,  6,  8).  See 
ch.  xxiv.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  4. 

4.  Dnj?  'j'lS  Paddan-aram  (vs.  2,  5-7).  See  cb.  xxv.  19- 
34,  Marks  of  P,  No.  4. 

5.  'I'l-^  b^{  God  Almighhj  (ver.  3).  Explained  above  ; 
see  also  cb.  xvii.,  p.  221,  and  Marks  of  P,  No.  6. 

6.  D^iay  bnjp  company  of  peoples  (ver.  3).  See  cb.  xvii., 
Marks  of  P,  No.  2. 

7.  D'^n.^'a  sojournings  (ver.  4).     See  cb.  xvii.,  Marks  of 

P,  No.  8': ' 

8.  '''Bnsin  the  Aramcean  (ver.  5).  See  cb.  xxv.  19-34, 
Marks  of  P,  No.  5. 

MAEKS  OF  J  (XXVII.   1-45) 

1.  rrnj^n  send  good  speed  (ver.  20).  See  cb.  xxiv., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  15. 

2.  n^3  mrS3  tvhen  he  made  an  end  (ver.  30)  ;  besides  in 
J,  xviii.  33 ;  xxiv.  22  ;  xliii.  2 ;  tbe  same  construction  of  n^s, 
not  introduced  by  niSiilS  (wbicb  is  purely  incidental),  in 
J,  xxiv.  15,  19,  45 ;  Num.  xvi.  31 ;  Josb.  viii.  24 ;  in  E, 
Josb.  X.  20 ;  in  P,  Gen.  xvii.  22 ;  xlix.  33  ;  Ex.  xxxi.  18 ; 
xxxiv.  33  ;  Lev.  xvi.  20 ;  Num.  vii.  1 ;  Josb.  xix.,  49,  51 ; 
alleged  later  stratum  of  P,  Num.  iv.  15 ;  in  Ed,  Deut. 
xxxi.  24 ;  in  D,  Deut.  xxxii.  45 ;  all  in  tbe  Hexateucb, 

3.  iaba  ITaX  said  in  his  heart  (ver.  41).  See  cb.  xxiv. 
Marks  of  J,  No.  17. 

4.  "Tbe  bouse"  (ver.  15).  "J  speaks  of  a  house  (not 
tent)  of  Isaac,  as  be  also  lets  Lot  live  in  one  in  Sodom 
(xix.  2  sqq.),  and  Jacob  build  one  at  Succotb  (xxxiii.  17)." 
But  E  also  speaks  of  Jacob  coming  back  to  bis  fatber's 
house  (xxviii.  21). 

MAEKS   OF  E 

1.  ^«  only  (vs.  13,  30)  as  against  pn  only  (xix.  8 ;  xxiv. 
8  J).     ^^  occurs  besides  in  Genesis  in  E,  xx.  12  ;  in  J,  vii. 


834  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   ISAAC 

23;  xviii.  32 ;  xxvi.  9  ;  xxis.  14  ;  xliv.  28 ;  in  P,  ix.  4,  5  ; 
xxiii.  13 ;  xxxiv.  15,  22,  23.  pn  occurs  repeatedly  in  J  as 
well  as  E.     See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  7. 

2.  D"ii:3  before  (vs.  4,  33)  as  against  ^:Bb  (vs.  7,  10). 
This  particle  occurs  in  J  and  P  as  well  as  E.  See  chs. 
xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  13. 

3.  "  The  form  of  address  (vs.  lb,  18),"  as  in  E,  xxii.  1, 
7,  11 ;  xxxi.  11 ;  xxxvii.  13 ;  xlvi.  2 ;  Ex.  iii.  4.  But 
xxii.  11  is  referred  to  E  in  spite  of  the  name  Jehovah  ; 
and  there  is  no  propriety  in  sundering  xxvii.  lb,  18,  from 
the  connection  in  which  they  stand. 

4.  Ii5)2""t?  exceedingly  (vs.  33,  34)  ;  nowhere  else  in  the 
Hexateuch. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  grounds  adduced  for  the  parti- 
tion of  ch.  xxvii.  between  J  and  E  are  flimsy  enough. 
The  alleged  doublets  are  no  doublets  at  all ;  the  verbal 
criteria  amount  to  nothing.  But  the  necessity  remains. 
Both  the  preceding  and  the  subsequent  history,  as  as- 
signed respectively  to  J  and  E,  presuppose  what  is  nar- 
rated in  this  chapter.  The  only  conclusion  consistent 
with  the  divisive  hypothesis  is  that  it  must  in  substance 
have  been  contained  in  both  these  documents.  And  as 
the  critics  find  it  impossible  to  partition  the  nan-ative, 
they  are  compelled  to  content  themselves  with  the  at- 
tempt to  discover  traces  of  both  J  and  E  ;  and  these 
traces  seem  to  be  hard  to  find.  They  are  repeatedly 
pressed  by  the  same  difficulty  in  their  endeavor  to  carry 
the  hypothesis  through  the  intractable  material  that  yet 
remains ;  and  they  are  obliged  to  resort  to  the  most 
questionable  expedients  to  compass  their  end. 

The  last  verse  of  ch.  xxvii.  links  it  closely  to  ch. 
xxviii.  Eebekah,  impressed  with  Jacob's  peril  from  his 
enraged  brother,  induces  Isaac  to  send  him  away  to  ob- 
tain a  wife.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  get  rid  of  this 
verse  with  its  evidence  of  unity,  and  it  is  accordingly  at- 


Jacob's  dream  (ch.  xxviir.  10-23)  335 

tributed  to  the  redactor  ;  and  the  rather  as  it  tends  still 
farther  to  combine  J  and  P  by  explicit  reference  to  P 
(xxvi.  34,  35),  and  borrowing  its  expressions,  "  danghters 
of  Heth,"  "  daughters  of  the  land,"  as  xxiii.  3,  xxxiv.  1, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  by  similarity  to  J  on  the  other.  Cf. 
"  what  good  shall  my  life  do  me,"  with  xxv.  22,  "  where- 
fore do  I  live  ?  " 


Jacob's  dream  (ch.  xxyiii.  10-22) 

In  xxviii.  5,  7  the  general  statement  is  made  that 
Jacob  had  set  out  for  Paddan-aram ;  in  vs.  10-22  a 
more  particidar  account  is  given  of  what  befell  him  on 
the  way.  Jehovah  appeared  to  him  as  he  was  leaving 
the  promised  land,  to  assure  him  of  divine  protection 
wherever  he  should  go,  and  of  a  safe  return  and  especially 
to  renew  to  him  the  promises  made  to  his  fathers  of  the 
possession  of  the  land  in  all  its  length  and  breadth,  and 
a  blessing  to  all  nations  through  his  seed.  Like  prom- 
ises were  made  in  similar  circumstances  to  Isaac  (xxvi. 
2-4),  and  to  Jacob  himself,  when  at  a  later  period  he 
was  about  to  go  down  into  Egypt  (xlvi.  3,  4).  Cf.  a  like 
promise  made  to  Abraham,  w^hen  the  future  sojourn  of 
his  seed  in  a  foreign  land  was  shown  to  him  (xv.  13-18). 

The  general  statement  above  mentioned  is  by  the  critics 
given  to  P,  and  the  particulars  included  under  it  to  JE. 
It  hence  results  that  though  P  relates  (xxviii.  1-9)  that 
Jacob  was  sent  to  Paddan-aram  to  obtain  a  wife,  and  that 
he  actually  set  out  for  the  purpose,  he  makes  no  mention 
of  anything  that  occurred  upon  his  journey  thither,  or  of 
his  arrival  there,  or  finding  his  mother's  relatives,  or  his 
marriage,  or  anything  regarding  his  long  residence  there. 
And  yet  these  things  must  have  been  mentioned,  for  they 
are  presupposed  in  what  is  said  elsewhere.  In  xxxv.  9 
P,  God  is  said  to  have  appeared  to  Jacob  again  at  Bethel, 


S36  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

implying  the  previous  appearance  (xxviii.  12  sqq.);  xxxi. 
18  P,  Jacob  leaves  Paddan-aram  with  goods  and  cattle 
acquired  there,  implying  a  previous  narrative  of  how  he 
had  obtained  them  ;  and  xxxv.  23-26  P  gives  the  names 
of  his  wives  and  the  children  born  to  him  in  Paddan- 
aram,  implying  a  previous  account  of  his  marriage  and 
his  family.  The  matters  thus  alluded  to  are  fully  re- 
corded in  the  sacred  narrative,  but  are  by  the  critics  as- 
signed to  J  and  E  ;  not  a  syllable  respecting  them  is  to 
be  found  in  P,  though  they  are  indispensable  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  this  document.  Just  that  is  missing  from  P 
which  the  critics  have  sundered  from  it,  and  transferred 
to  other  supposititious  documents.  There  is  here  a  glar- 
ing lack  of  continuity  in  P,  as  well  as  repeated  references 
in  P  to  the  contents  of  J  and  E ;  both  of  which  are  in- 
consistent with  the  hypothesis  of  separate  and  indepen- 
dent documents. 

Constrained  by  the  occurrence  in  this  passage  of  both 
Elohim  (vs.  12,  17  sqq.)  and  Jehovah  (vs.  13-16)  the 
critics  undertake  to  parcel  vs.  10-22  between  E  and  J. 
Wellhausen,  followed  by  Kautzsch  (l«st  edition)  and 
Stade,^  gives  vs.  10-12,  17,  18,  20,  21a,  22,  to  E,  and  the 
rest  to  J,  except  19b,  21b,  which  are  assigned  to  R.  Ac- 
cordingly E  speaks  of  a  dream,  in  which  Jacob  saw  a 
ladder  and  angels,  but  received  no  accompanying  revela- 
tion. J  makes  no  mention  of  any  ladder  or  angels,  but 
only  of  the  appearance  of  Jehovah,  who  stood  beside 
Jacob  and  gave  him  promises  for  the  present  and  the 
future.  Thus  divided,  the  vision  which  was  granted  to 
Jacob,  according  to  E,  had  no  special  adaptation  to  his 
existing  circumstances,  but  is  supposed  to  be  a  legend 
here  recorded  with  the  view  of  enhancing  the  sacredness 
of  the  sanctuary  that  existed  at  Bethel  in  later  times. 
And  the  point  of  it  is  that  on  that  spot  communication 
'  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  p.  60. 


JACOB'S  DKEAM   (CH.   XXVIII.   10-22)  337 

was  opened  between  earth  and  heaven  by  a  ladder  on 
which  celestial  beings  ascended  and  descended.  But  while 
in  the  opinion  of  the  critics  the  whole  intent  of  E  was  to 
glorify  the  sanctuary  at  Bethel,  he  does  not  once  men- 
tion Bethel,  nor  give  any  intimation  where  it  was  that 
this  vision  occuiTed.  The  name  of  the  place  is  only  to 
be  found  in  ver.  19a,  which  is  attributed  to  J.^ 

Moreover,  the  vision  of  the  ladder  and  the  angels  (ver. 
12)  cannot  be  separated  from  the  revelation  of  Jehovah 
which  follows  (ver.  13)  and  interprets  it  (ver,  15),  or  rather 
which  is  the  most  essential  part  of  the  whole  supernat- 
ural manifestation.  In  vs.  11,  12,  Jacob  goes  to  sleep 
and  dreams ;  in  ver.  16  he  awakes ;  this  is  evidently  a 
continuation  of  the  preceding  and  cannot  be  referred  to 
a  separate  document.^  In  its  present  connection  l^by 
ujion  it  or  above  it  (ver.  13)  plainly  refers  to  the  ladder 
(ver.  12).  To  sunder  it  from  the  preceding  and  insist 
that  it  should  be  rendered  beside  him,  is  gratuitously  to 
charge  the  redactor  with  having  falsified  its  meaning. 
A  ladder  reaching  to  the  skies,  on  which  angels  were 
ascending  and  descending,  might  entitle  the  place  to  be 
called  "  the  gate  of  heaven,"  but  not  "  the  house  of  God  " 
(ver.  17) ;  nor  could  it  be  said  that  God  there  appeared 
unto  Jacob  (xxxv.  1,  7,  E).  In  his  vow  (vs.  20,  21a) 
Jacob  adopts  the  very  terms  of  the  promise  which  Je- 

'  Dillmann  says,  "  It  may  be  doubted  from  which  source  ver.  19  has 
been  derived  ;  it  probably  belongs  to  both,  as  it  cannot  be  dispensed 
with  in  either  ;  E  in  particular  presupposes  the  name  Bethel  as  already 
existing  "  (xxxi.  13  ;  xxxv.  3). 

^  In  order  to  escape  this  diflSculty  Stade  ventures  the  suggestion  :  "  It 
may  very  well  be  supposed  that  in  the  original  connection  of  J  the 
manifestation  did  not  take  place  in  a  dream,  so  that  '  And  Jacob 
awaked  out  of  his  sleep,'  in  ver.  16,  has  been  inserted  from  E.  This  is 
a  mode  of  evasion  to  which  the  critics  frequently  resort  with  the  view 
of  ridding  themselves  of  unwelcome  clauses  or  words.  Here  it  leaves 
the  following  verb  '  said  '  without  a  subject. " 


338  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

hovali  had  just  made  (ver.  15) ;  so  that  these  cannot  be 
from  distinct  documents.  And  ver.  21b,  of  which  the 
critics  try  to  rid  themselves  because  of  its  "  Jehovah,"  is 
most  appropriate  where  it  stands,  whetlier  it  continues 
the  preamble,^  or  introduces  Jacob's  own  pledge.  Jeho- 
vah had  announced  himself  as  the  God  of  Abraham  and 
of  Isaac  (ver.  13),  would  he  likewise  be,  as  was  implied 
in  his  promise,  Jacob's  God  ?  But  if  this  clause  be,  as 
the  critics  will  have  it,  an  insertion  from  J  or  an  addi- 
tion by  R,  it  remains  to  be  explained  how  either  J  or 
R  should  have  fallen  upon  a  characteristic  phrase  of  P 
(xvii.  7 ;  Ex.  vi.  7  ;  xxix.  45). 

Verses  10-12  are  absolutely  necessary  to  explain  the 
situation  in  vs.  13-16  J ;  without  them  there  is  no  sug- 
gestion how  Jacob  came  to  be  at  Bethel.  But  they  are 
equally  necessary  to  vs.  17,  18,  E.  If,  however,  under 
the  pressure  of  this  latter  necessity  vs.  10-12  are  given 
to  E,  another  incongruity  will  result.  The  mention  of 
Beersheba  as  Jacob's  point  of  departure  (ver,  10)  im- 
plies Isaac's  residence  there,  as  recorded  by  J  (xxvi.  33) 
but  not  by  E.  And  Haran,  to  which  he  was  going,  also 
points  to  J  (xxvii.  43 ;  xxix.  4) ;  it  does  not  occur  in  E. 
Hence  Hupfeld,  Dillmann,  and  Kautzsch  (2d  edition) 
give  ver.  10  to  J ;  but  then  E  lacks  any  proper  beginning. 
Hupfeld  made  the  attempt  to  split  ver.  11  by  assigning 

1  Hengstenberg  (Beitrage,  ii.,  p.  370),  followed  by  Tucli  and  Banmgar- 
ten,  extends  the  preamble  to  the  end  of  ver.  21,  as  in  the  margin  of  the 
Revised  Version,  "  and  Jehovah  will  be  my  God,  then  this  stone,''  etc. 
This  corresponds  with  the  change  of  tenses  from  preterite  to  future  at 
that  point  in  the  sentence,  and  with  the  common  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  "to  be  the  God  of  anyone,"  e.g.,  ver.  13,  which  is  elsewhere 
suggestive  of  the  divine  regard  rather  than  of  the  human  obligation  of 
worship.  Delitzsch,  Knobel,  and  Dillmann  prefer  the  rendering  of  the 
A.  V.  and  the  text  of  the  R.  V.,  which  is  also  that  of  the  LXX.  and  the 
Vulgate.  But  it  is  questionable  whether  they  are  not  influenced  in 
their  decision  by  the  critical  partition  which  sunders  vs.  20,  21,  from 
ver.  13. 


JACOB'S   DREAM    (CH.   XXVIII.  10-22)  339 

"  lie  lighted  upon  a  certain  place  and  took  one  of  the 
stones  of  the  place  and  put  it  under  his  head,"  to  E,  and 
"  he  tarried  there  (where  ?)  all  night  because  the  sun  was 
set,  and  lay  down  in  that  place  to  sleep,"  to  J ;  but  he 
gave  it  up  as  impracticable.  Any  division  of  the  pas- 
sage creates  a  gap  in  both  documents,  neither  of  which 
can  be  filled  but  by  trenching  upon  the  other.  The 
whole  passage  is,  moreover,  closely  linked  with  ch. 
xxvii,,  where  we  have  found  that  a  critical  division  is 
equally  impracticable. 

In  order  to  make  out  the  composite  character  of  the 
passage  a  doublet  is  claimed  in  vs.  16,  17.  With  the 
best  endeavor  to  do  so  I  have  not  been  able  to  compre- 
hend the  point  of  view  from  which  ver.  17  can  be  con- 
sidered indicative  of  a  different  writer  from  ver.  16,  un- 
less it  be  on  the  sole  ground  of  the  change  of  divine 
names.  It  is  surely  the  most  natural  and  appropriate 
exclamation  under  the  circumstances.  Ver.  17  does  not 
duplicate  ver.  16,  but  is  its  suitable  sequel.  Neither  is 
ver.  22  a  duplicate  of  ver.  19.  The  relation  is  not  that 
of  equivalence  but  of  dependence.  Because  God  had 
here  manifested  his  presence  Jacob  named  the  place 
Bethel,  "a  house  of  God."  And  if  God  would  verify 
the  promise  there  given  (ver.  15),  Jacob  pledges  himself 
to  regard  this  spot  as  in  reality  what  this  name  denoted  : 
it  should  be  to  him  a  house  of  God,  and  here  he  would 
consecrate  a  tenth  of  all  to  him. 

Wellhausen  finds  indications  of  a  diversity  of  writers 
in  the  order  in  which  the  points  of  the  compass  are 
named,  J  (xxviii.  14)  W.,  E.,  N.,  S.,  but  E  (xiii.  14)  N., 
S.,  E.,  W. ;  in  "all  the  families  of  the  earth"  ^HstD'a 
rTaiSin  (xii.  3  ;  xxviii.  14  J),  compared  with  "  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  "  -j^ns^n  "i^ia  (xviii.  18  E)  ;  and  in  "  thee 
and  thy  seed  "  (xiii.  15  E),  and  an  implied  reference  to 
"  seed  "  (xviii.  18  E)  compared  with  "  in  thee  "  (xii.  3  J), 


340  THE   GENirRATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

wlience  he  infers  that  "  in  thy  seed  "  (xxviii.  14  J)  is  an 
addition  by  R.  But  Dillmann  and  others  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  attributing  all  these  passages  alike  to  J,  and  see 
no  occasion  for  assuming  any  insertion  or  manipulation 
by  R.  The  fact  is  that  where  distinct  writers  are  as- 
sumed on  independent  grounds  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
gathering  up  arguments  from  varying  words  and  phrases 
to  sustain  a  predetermined  conclusion  ;  but  these  will  be 
set  aside  without  ceremony  by  the  critics  themselves 
when  they  have  no  end  to  be  answered  by  them. 

In  Jacob's  dream  Jehovah,  the  God  of  the  chosen 
race,  appeared  to  him  (xxviii.  13,  16),  in  order  to  assure 
him  that  though  temporarily  exiled  from  his  father's 
house  he  would  not  on  that  account  be  severed  from  the 
God  of  his  father,  as  Ishmael  had  been  when  sent  away 
from  Abraham's  household,  and  Lot  when  his  connec- 
tion with  Abraham  was  finally  cut  off  by  his  passing  be- 
yond the  limit  of  the  promised  land.  God  was  thence- 
forward Eloliim  to  them  as  to  all  who  were  aliens  to  the 
chosen  race.  But  Jacob  was  still  under  the  guardianship 
of  Jehovah,  who  would  continue  with  him  wherever  he 
might  go.  The  angels  (ver.  12),  however,  are  not  called 
"  angels  of  Jehovah,"  which  never  occurs  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  "  angels  of  Elohim,"  as  xxxii.  2  (E.  V.  ver.  1), 
who  are  thus  distinguished  from  messengers  of  men — the 
Hebrew  word  for  "  angel "  properly  meaning  "  messen- 
ger." This  does  not  mark  a  distinction  between  the  docu- 
ments, as  though  J  knew  of  but  one  angel,  "  the  angel  of 
Jehovah,"  the  divine  angel,  while  E  speaks  of  "  angels  ;  " 
for  J  has  "  angels  "  in  the  plural  (xix.  1,  15).  The  place 
where  Jehovah  had  thus  revealed  himself  Jacob  calls 
"  the  house  of  God  "  and  "  the  gate  of  heaven,"  God  in 
contrast  with  man,  as  heaven  with  earth.  It  Avas  a  spot 
marked  by  a  divine  manifestation.  The  critical  sever- 
ance will  not  answer  here,  for,  as  already  stated,  if  vs.  13- 


Jacob's  dream  (ch.  xxviii.  10-32)  341 

16  be  exscinded  as  belonging  to  J,  the  vision  of  angels 
(ver.  12)  alone  would  not  entitle  it  to  be  called  the  house 
of  God  (ver.  17).  The  scene  of  Jehovah's  appearing  is 
called  "  Beth-El,"  precisely  as  Hannah  called  her  child 
"  Samu-El,  because  I  have  asked  him  of  Jehovah "  {1 
Sam.  i.  20).  In  Jacob's  vow  (vs.  20,  22)  the  specifica- 
tions respect  God's  general  providential  care,  and  hence 
he  uses  Eloliim,  while  nevertheless  in  a  manner  perplex- 
ing to  the  critics,  who  find  themselves  obliged  to  erase 
the  offending  clause,  he  recognizes  Jehovah  as  the  God 
(ver.  21)  to  whom  he  makes  his  appeal  and  gives  his 
pledge. 

MARKS   OF   J   (vs.   10,  13-16,  19a) 

1.  "The  contents  and  form  of  the  promises  (vs.  13- 
16)  "  ;  cf.  xiii.  14,  16  ;  xii.  3  ;  xviii.  18.  See  chs.  xviii., 
xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  25. 

2.  by  iii:  stand  on  or  ovei^  (ver.  14) ;  elsewhere  in  J, 
xviii.  2  ;  xxiv.  13,  43  ;  xlv.  1  ;  Ex.  xxxiii.  21 ;  xxxiv.  2  ; 
in  E,  Ex.  vii.  15 ;  xvii.  9  ;  xviii.  14 ;  Num.  xxiii.  6,  17. 

3.  'jJ'ls  break  forth,  spread  abroad  (ver.  14);  elsewhere 
in  J,  XXX.  30,  43  ;  xxxviii.  29  ;  Ex.  xix.  22,  24 ;  in  E,  Ex. 
i.  12. 

4.  rra'lii  ground,  earth,  land  (vs.  14,  15).  This  word  is 
reckoned  a  criterion  of  J,  and  whenever  it  is  practicable, 
paragraphs  or  clauses  that  contain  it  are  for  that  reason 
referred  to  J.  Nevertheless  in  repeated  instances  it  can- 
not be  excluded  from  P  and  E.  It  is  used  to  denote  (1) 
Earth  as  a  material,  so  in  J,  Gen.  ii.  7,  19 ;  iii.  19 ;  in  E, 
Ex.  XX.  24.  (2)  The  soil  as  tilled  and  productive,  thirty 
times,  mostly  in  J ;  as  no  passage  relating  to  tillage  is 
assigned  to  P,  of  course  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  use 
of  the  word  in  this  sense ;  it  is  found  in  E,  Ex.  xxiii. 
19.  (3)  The  surface  of  the  earth,  the  ground,  not  only  in 
J,  but  also  in  P  (Gen.  i.  25  ;  vi.  20 ;  ix.  2)  ;  and  in  E,  Ex. 


342  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

iii.  5 ;  Num.  xvi.  30,  31  (with  rrons)  is  given  to  J,  and 
ver.  32a  (with  y"iS)  to  E,  though  a  continuous  sentence 
is  thus  cut  in  two,  and  ver.  32  corresponds  to  ver.  30, 
and  records  its  fulfilment.  (4)  The  land  of  Canaan,  five 
times ;  four  of  these  are  referred  to  J  (Gen.  xxviii.  15 ; 
Lev.  XX.  24,  so  Dillmann ;  Num.  xi.  12 ;  xxxii.  11 );  and 
one  to  E  (Ex.  xx.  12) ;  yni5  is  mostly  used  in  this  sense 
by  J  as  well  as  by  P  and  E.  (5)  The  whole  earth,  twice ; 
in  J  "  all  the  families  of  the  earth  "  (Gen.  xii.  3 ;  xxviii. 
14) ;  but  the  parallel  j)assages  have  "j^ns  (xviii.  18  J,  and 
xxii.  18 ;  xxvi.  4  referred  to  R  in  a  J  connection).  See 
ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

MAKES  OF  E   (VS.  11,  12,  17,  18,  20,  21a,  22) 

1.  "  These  verses  have  Elohim,  but  P  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  the  author  on  account  of  xxxv.  9-15."  But 
that  is  not  a  variant  accoimt  of  the  same  transaction,  and 
as  such  implying  a  different  author.  It  is  expressly 
stated  (xxxv.  9)  to  be  a  second  divine  manifestation  in 
this  place,  thus  presupposing  the  narrative  in  the  passage 
before  us. 

2.  "The  back  references  (xxxi.  13;  xxxv.  3,  7)  prove 
that  it  belongs  to  E."  These  tend  to  establish  an  iden- 
tity of  authorship  with  those  passages,  but  do  not  imply 
that  they  belong  to  a  sej^arate  document  from  the  rest  of 
the  text  in  which  they  are  found.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  the  back  reference  from  xxxii.  13  (E.  V.,  ver.  12)  J. 

3.  a  ^y^  to  light  upon  (ver.  11)  ;  elsewhere  in  E,  xxxii. 
2  (E.  V.  ver.  1) ;  in  JE,  Josh.  ii.  16  ;  xvii.  10 ;  in  P,  Gen. 
xxiii.  8 ;  Num.  xxxv.  19,  21 ;  Josh.  xvi.  7  ;  xix.  11,  22,  26, 
27,  34. 

4.  npina  D'^Ston  rose  up  early  in  the  morning  (ver.  18). 
See  chs.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  26. 

5.  "  The  tithe  (ver.  22)."  Tithes  are  spoken  of  besides 


JACOB'S   DREAM    (CH.   XXVIII.  10-22)  343 

in  the  priest  code  (Lev.  xxvii.,  Num.  xviii.),  and  the  Deu- 
teronomic  law,  and  but  once  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch, 
viz.,  Gen.  xiv.  20,  which  Dillmann  doubtfully  refers  to  E, 
while  at  the  same  time  he  holds  ^  with  other  critics  that 
the  first  certain  trace  of  E  is  in  Gen.  xx.  The  ascription 
of  the  passage  before  us  to  E  on  this  ground  rests  thus 
on  a  very  slender  basis.  It  is  far  more  natural  to  believe 
that  as  the  patriarchal  institutions  supply  the  germs 
from  which  the  ritual  law  was  subsequently  developed, 
they  are  recorded  for  that  reason,  and  by  the  same  hand 
as  the  law  itself.  The  notion,  which  the  critics  seek 
to  fasten  on  P,  that  the  Mosaic  ritual  had  not  even 
a  germinal  existence  in  the  days  of  the  patriarchs,  is 
without  the  slightest  foundation  in  the  sacred  record, 
or  in  the  nature  of  things.  It  is  one  of  the  absurdi- 
ties that  grow  out  of  sundering  what  properly  belongs 
together. 

6.  "The  dream  (ver.  12)."     Seech,  xx.,  Marks  of  E, 

No.  4. 

In  commenting  on  xii.  8,  Dillmann  remarks  that  there 
and  xiii.  4  the  sacredness  of  Bethel  is  traced  to  Abra- 
ham, while  elsewhere  (xxviii.  22 ;  xxxv.  7  sqq.)  it  is  traced 
to  Jacob.  In  his  prefatory  remarks  upon  the  section 
now  before  us,  with  the  view  apparently  of  removing  this 
fancied  divergence,  he  observes  that  in  xii.  8  it  was  a 
place  near  Bethel,  and  not  Bethel  itself,  that  was  conse- 
crated by  Abraham.  But  the  sacred  writer  makes  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  idolatrous  sanctuary  subse- 
quently established  at  Bethel ;  least  of  all  is  he  giving  an 
accoimt  of  its  origin.  There  is  no  discrepancy  in  differ- 
ent patriarchs  successively  visiting  the  same  place  and 
building  altars  there.  These  descriptions  of  patriarchal 
worship  are  not  legends  to  gain  credit  for  the  sanctuary ; 
but  the  superstition  of  later  ages  founded  sanctuaries  in 

1  Die  Bticher  Num. -Jos.,  p.  615. 


344  THE   GENERATIONS   OF  ISAAC 

venerated  spots,  where  the   patriarchs  had  worshipped, 
and  where  God  had  revealed  himself  to  them. 


JACOB   IN   HARAN    (CHS.    XXIX.,   XXX.) 

The  critics  here  find  themselves  in  a  serious  muddle. 
According  to  Hupfeld  ("  Quellen,"p.  65)  ch.  xxix.  bears  so 
evidently  the  stamp  of  J  that  the  opposite  view,  which 
is  perfectly  arbitrary,  needs  no  refutation.  Wellhausen 
is  just  as  confident  that  xxix.  1-30  is,  with  trifling  excep 
tions,  from  E,  while  Dillmann  compromises  the  matter 
by  making  nearly  an  equal  division,  and  giving  vs.  2-15a 
to  J,  and  the  rest  almost  entirely  to  E.  Hupfeld  ("  Quel- 
len,"  p.  43)  maintains  that  xxx.  1-24  continues  J's  history 
without  the  trace  of  a  seam,  with  the  same  basis  and 
presuppositions,  the  same  manner  and  language;  while 
in  the  judgment  of  Wellhausen  and  Dillmann  it  is  "  a 
very  remarkable  piece  of  mosaic  from  J  and  E."  The 
trouble  in  xxix.  1-30  is  that  there  are  no  divine  names ; 
the  trouble  is  increased  in  xxix.  31-xxx.  24  by  the  fact 
that  there  are  divine  names. 

Dillmann  claims  that  there  is  a  break  in  the  former  of 
these  paragraphs  at  xxix.  15,  inasmuch  as  Laban  here 
asks  Jacob  what  wages  he  shall  pay  him,  though  there 
had  been  no  previous  mention  that  Jacob  had  entered 
Laban's  service  as  a  shepherd,  or  had  any  thought  of 
doing  so.  There  is,  of  course,  a  transition  to  a  new  sub- 
ject, as  must  be  the  case  whenever  a  fresh  topic  is  intro- 
duced; but  it  is  by  no  means  a  violent  one,  since  ver.  14 
sj)eaks  of  Jacob's  abode  with  Laban,  and  it  is  not  a  re- 
mote supposition  that  he  made  himself  serviceable  during 
his  stay  (cf.  ver.  10).  At  any  rate  it  fails  to  justify  Dill- 
mann's  own  division  after  ver.  15a,  in  which  the  subject 
of  a  recompense  for  service  is  already  broached.  Nor  is 
there  any  implication  in  vs.  16,  17,  that  Rachel  had  not 


JACOB   IN   HARAN   (CHS.    XXIX.,    XXX.)  345 

been  previously  spoken  of,  from  which  it  might  be  in- 
ferred that  vs.  6,  9-12  are  from  a  different  document. 
It  had  not  been  before  mentioned  that  Laban  had  two 
daughters,  that  Eachel  was  the  younger,  and  that  she  was 
more  attractive  than  her  sister.  These  facts  are  intro- 
duced here,  since  they  are  necessary  to  explain  Jacob's 
answer  (ver.  18)  to  Laban's  proposal. 

The  arguments  urged  to  establish  the  duplicate  char- 
acter of  the  latter  paragraph  (xxix.  31-xxx.  24)  are 
chiefly — 

1.  The  repeated  occurrence  of  Elohim. 

2.  The  different  explanations  given  of  the  names  Is- 
sachar,  Zebulun,  and  Joseph. 

To  the  first  of  these  Huj)feld  replies  that  Elohim  in 
XXX.  2,  8  is  no  criterion,  because  the  predominant,  if  not 
exclusive,  biblical  usage  requires  it  rather  than  Jehovah 
in  such  expressions  as  are  there  employed.  And  that  in 
the  etymologies  of  the  names,  e.g.,  in  vs.  G,  8,  18,  20,  23, 
the  general  term  Elohim,  as  more  poetic,  would  naturally 
be  preferred,  as  it  is  in  Proverbs. 

Where  there  are  two  explanations  of  the  same  name 
be  concedes  that  something  has  been  inserted  from  an- 
other source.  But  there  seems  to  be  little  cogency  in 
this  consideration.  Issachar  {sachar,  hire)  is  associated 
with  Leah's  hiring  by  mandrakes  and  hiring  by  the  gift 
of  her  maid  ;  Zebulun,  with  zahad,  "  endow,"  and  zabal, 
"dwell;"  Joseph,  Avith  asoph,  "take  away,"  and  yasaph, 
"  add."  These  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  discrepant  ex- 
planations of  these  names,  implying  different  views  of 
their  origin  or  of  the  occasion  of  their  being  given,  but 
simply  different  allusions  to  the  meaning  or  the  sound  of 
the  names,  which  by  no  means  exclude  each  other.  Such 
allusions  are  multiplied  in  the  case  of  Isaac.  The  name 
means  "  laughter ; "  and  we  are  told  how  Abraham  laughed 
and  Sarah  laughed  incredulously  when  his  birth  was  pre- 


346  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

dieted,  and  how  God  made  lier  laugh  for  joy,  and  all  her 
friends  laugh  with  her  when  he  was  actually  born.  There 
is  no  inconsistenc}^  in  these  statements,  and  no  need  of 
parcelling  them  among  different  writers.  It  is  the  same 
writer  playfully  dwelling  upon  different  aspects  of  a 
theme  which  interests  him. 

Dillmann  thus  apportions  the  record  of  the  birth  of 
Jacob's  children :  J,  xxix.  31-35  ;  E,  xxx.  l-3a  (including 
hear  upon  my  knees,  as  1.  23  E);  J,  3b  {that  I  may  he  huild- 
ed  hy  her),  as  xvi.  2 ;  J,  or  rather  P,  4a  ;  J,  4b,  5  ;  E,  6  ; 
J,  7  ;  E,  8  ;  J,  9a ;  P,  9b ;  J,  10-16 ;  E,  17-20a ;  J,  20b ; 
J  or  E,  21  ;i  P,  22a;  E,  22b;  J,  22c;  E,  23;  J,  24. 
And  this  in  a  paragraph  which  bears  the  most  abundant 
and  positive  evidences  of  unity  from  first  to  last  in  con- 
tinuity of  theme,  consistent  method  of  treatment,  cross- 
references,  style,  and  language. 

"  Leah  was  hated "  (xxix.  31),  see  vs.  18,  20,  25,  30. 
"Opened  her  womb"  (xxix.  31;  xxx.  22),  opposed  to 
"  shut "  (xx.  18 ;  xvi.  2) ;  cf.  xxx.  2.     "  Rachel  was  bar- 

'  The  birth  of  a  daughter  is  never  inentioued  unless  she  is  to  appear 
in  the  subsequent  history  (cf.  xxii.  23).  Dinah  (xxix.  21)  is  prepara- 
tory to  ch.  xxxiv.  ;  and  as  no  part  of  that  chapter  is  given  to  E,  xxx. 
21  is  necessarily  referred  to  either  J  or  R.  So  the  numerous  allusions 
in  xxix.  5, 10,  12,  13,  to  ch.  xxiv.  J,  make  it  necessary  to  refer  the  para- 
graph, containing  those  verses  to  J.  The  frequent  references,  both  for- 
ward and  backward,  in  Genesis  and  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  bind  the 
whole  together  in  inseparable  unity,  and  oppose  a  formidable  obstacle 
to  any  divisive  scheme.  They  put  an  end  to  the  fragment  hypothe- 
sis, and  they  compel  the  advocates  of  the  document  hypothesis  to  use 
great  adroitness  in  so  adjusting  their  lines  of  partition  that  it  may  ap- 
pear as  though  each  document  only  presupposed  or  alluded  to  what  is 
contained  in  itself.  By  using  the  utmost  ingenuity  and  making  a  per- 
fectly arbitrary  partition,  severing  what  properly  belongs  together  and 
splintering  the  text  ad  infinitum,  if  need  be,  they  manage  to  cover  a 
considerable  number  of  these  cross-references.  But  in  spite  of  every 
effort  to  prevent  it,  the  matter  referred  to  is  often  in  the  wrong  docu- 
ment, and  the  hypothesis  can  only  be  saved  by  assuming  that  it  was 
originally  in  the  other  document  likewise,  but  R  has  omitted  it. 


JACOB   IN    HARAN    (CHS.   XXIX.,    XXX.)  347 

ren  "  (xxix.  31) ;  see  xxx.  1,  2,  22,  23.  "  Conceived  and 
bare  a  son,"  "  called  his  name,"  "  and  said  "  (xxix.  32),  the 
same  formulas  with  very  slight  variations  recurring 
throughout.  The  language  of  the  mothers  refers  in 
every  case  to  the  jealousy  between  the  wives  on  account 
of  Jacob's  preference  for  Rachel  and  Leah's  fertility. 
n?sn  Uiis  time,  now  (xxix.  34 ;  xxx.  20).  "  My  husband 
will — because  I  have  borne  him — sons"  (xxix.  34;  xxx. 
20).  "She  left  bearing "  (xxix.  35;  xxx.  9).  "Again" 
(xxix.  33,  34,  35  ;  xxx.  7, 19).  Bilhah  (xxx.  4),  Zilpah  (ver. 
9),  cf.  xxix.  24,  29.  "Fifth"  (xxx.  17),  "sixth"  (ver. 
19)  son  of  Leah,  referring  to  the  preceding  four  (xxix. 
32-35).  "  God  hearkened  unto  "  (xxx.  17,  22) ;  with  the 
whole  paragraph  cf.  xxxii.  22 ;  xxxv.  23-26.  In  formal- 
ity of  set  phrases  and  in  repetitions  it  is  equal  to  any 
paragraph  attributed  to  P. 

The  critics  may  well  infer  that  this  poiiion  of  the  story 
must  have  been  very  strikingly  alike  in  J  and  in  E,  if  il 
could  thus  pass  back  and  forth  from  one  to  the  other 
with  no  perceptible  effect  upon  his  narrative.  The  fact 
is  that  the  paragraph  is  without  seam,  woven  from  the 
top  throughout,  and  the  critics  have  mistaken  the  figures 
deftly  wrought  into  the  material  for  patches  slightly 
stitched  together,  and  they  try  to  rend  it  accordingly, 
but  it  will  not  tear.  There  is  really  nothing  for  them  to 
do  but  to  cast  lots  for  it,  which  of  the  documents  shall 
have  it.  If  the  paragraph  had  been  purposely  con- 
structed with  this  view,  it  could  not  more  effectively 
demonstrate  the  futility  of  using  the  divine  names  and 
alleged  doublets  for  parcelling  the  text  of  Genesis. 

The  critical  disposition  of  xxx.  25-43  J  is  based  on  the 
unfounded  assumption  of  discrepancies  between  it  and 
xxxi.  7  sqq.,  41  E,  both  in  respect  to  the  chronology  and 
the  contract  between  Laban  and  Jacob. 

According  to  xxxi.  41,  Jacob  served  Laban  twenty  years, 


348  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

fourteen  for  his  two  daughters  and  six  for  his  cattle. 
But  (xxx.  25  sqq.)  the  bargain  about  the  cattle  was  made 
after  the  birth  of  Joseph,  and  (xxix.  20-28)  Jacob  was 
married  to  Leah  and  Rachel  after  he  had  already  served 
seven  years.  Now  it  is  alleged  that  he  could  not  have 
had  eleven  children  in  the  next  seven  years.  The  fallacy 
lies  in  failing  to  observe  that  there  were  four  mothers. 
The  narrative  is  linked  throughout  by  Vav  Consecutive  ; 
but  this  does  not  prove  that  each  several  clause  follows 
its  predecessor  in  regular  succession.'  The  children  are 
grouped  by  their  mothers,  and  thus  the  order  of  thought 
deviates  from  the  order  of  time.  Rachel's  jealousy  was 
aroused,  and  Bilhali  introduced  to  Jacob  (xxx.  1  sqq.) 
before  Leah  ceased  bearing  (xxix.  35).  Leah's  four  sons 
were  born  in  rapid  succession,  and  as  soon  as  she  found 
that  she  was  not  at  once  to  have  another  (xxx.  9)  she 
substituted  Zilpah,  and  before  Zilpah  had  her  second 
son  she  had  herself  conceived  her  fifth  (ver.  17).  Thus 
her  sixth  son  could  be  born  within  the  seven  years,  and 
Joseph's  birth  have  taken  place  about  the  same  time. 
Dinah  (ver.  21)  was  born  afterAvard,  and  is  not  to  be  in- 
cluded within  the  period  in  question.  The  alleged  dis- 
crepancy, accordingly,  is  not  proved. 

How  is  it  with  the  bargaining  between  Laban  and 
Jacob  ?  The  latter  charges  that  Laban  had  sought  to 
defraud  him  by  changing  his  wages  ten  times  (xxxi.  7, 
41),  but  by  God's  interference  this  had  been  turned  to 
Jacob's  profit.  On  the  other  hand,  in  xxx.  31  sqq.,  La- 
ban assented  to  an  arrangement  which  Jacob  himself 
proposed,  and  wiiich  Jacob  by  a  trick  turned  to  his  own 
advantage.     The  two  statements  are  not  in  conflict,  but 

1  Hengstenberg  (Aiithentie  des  Peiitateuclis,  ii.,  p.  351)  appeals  to  Ex. 
ii.  1,  where,  tliough  Moses  was  born  after  Pharaoh's  cruel  edict  (i.  22), 
the  marriage  of  his  parents  and  the  birth  of  his  brother  Aaron  (Ex. 
vii.  7)  must  have  preceded  it. 


JACOB  IlSr  HAEAlSr   (CHS.  XXIX.,    XXX.)  349 

supplemental  to  each  otlier.  Chapter  xxx.  describes  the 
original  arrangement  and  Jacob's  device.  Chapter  xxxi. 
tells  how  Laban  modified  it  from  time  to  time  with  a 
view  to  his  own  interest,  but  his  selfish  plans  were  di- 
vinely thwarted. 

The  comparison  of  chs.  xxx,  and  xxxi.  accordingly  sup- 
plies no  basis  for  the  assumption  of  discrepant  accounts 
from  different  writers.  But  Wellhausen  fancies  a  dis- 
crepancy in  ch.  xxx.  itself,  alleging  that  vs.  32-34:  are  in- 
consistent with  their  context.  He  understands  these 
verses  to  mean  that  the  spotted  and  brown  cattle  at  that 
time  in  the  flocks  were  to  constitute  Jacob's  hire ; 
whereas  (vs.  35,  36)  they  were  separated  from  the  flocks 
and  given  not  to  Jacob  but  to  Laban's  sons.  The  difli- 
culty  is  altogether  imaginary,  and  is  simply  due  to  a 
misinterpretation  of  the  brief  and  elliptical  statement  in 
ver.  32.  The  real  meaning  is,  as  is  plain  from  Jacob's 
opening  words  in  ver.  31,  and  as  it  is  correctly  under- 
stood by  Dillmann,  that  the  speckled  and  brown  cattle 
to  be  born  thereafter  were  to  be  Jacob's  ;  and  as  a  pre- 
liminary measure  those  of  this  description  that  were 
then  in  the  flocks  were  set  apart  as  Laban's. 

The  doublets  alleged  are  quite  trivial,  and  appear  at 
once  upon  examination  to  be  unreal.  Ver.  26a  does  not 
repeat  25b,  but  supplements  it ;  Jacob  first  asks  in  gen- 
eral terms  to  be  dismissed  that  he  may  return  to  his  home, 
and  then  adds,  as  included  in  his  request,  "  Give  me  my 
wives  and  my  children  and  let  me  go."  Ver.  26b  is  re- 
peated in  ver.  29,  but  it  is  for  the  sake  of  adding  ver.  30, 
in  which  Jacob  enlarges  upon  what  he  had  already  said, 
in  order  that  he  may  impress  upon  Laban  the  obligation 
under  which  he  had  already  laid  him.  In  ver.  31a  La- 
ban repeats  the  ofter  made  in  ver.  28,  Avhicli  Jacob  had 
declined  to  answer  in  the  first  instance,  preferring  to 
state  the  service  which  he  had  rendered,  and  thus  give 


350  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   ISAAC 

Laban  an  idea  of  wliat  he  was  entitled  to,  before  lie 
made  any  demand.  Dillmann  himself  sets  aside  Well- 
hausen's  suggestion  that  39a  is  a  doublet  of  38b.  The 
central  clause  of  ver.  40  is  magisterially  declared  to  be  a 
later  insertion,  but  as  no  reason  is  given,  and  none  is 
apparent,  no  answer  is  necessary.  These  can  scarcelj- 
be  regarded  as  establishing  the  existence  of  a  composite 
text  derived  from  distinct  sources. 

THE   DIVINE   NAMES 

Two  things  are  here  observable  in  relation  to  the  di- 
vine names,  and  have  often  been  remarked  :  that  in  this 
portion  of  Genesis,  and  on  to  the  end  of  the  book,  they 
occur  less  frequently  than  before ;  and  that  Elohim 
largely  predominates  over  Jehovah.  Several  considera- 
tions should  be  noted  as  bearing  upon  the  explanation 
of  these  facts  : 

1.  Jacob  was  on  a  lower  plane,  religiously,  than  Abra- 
ham and  Isaac. 

2.  His  life  was  henceforth  largely  spent  away  from  the 
holy  land  and  among  those  not  of  the  chosen  race. 

3.  Since  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to  the  patriarchs  had 
been  sufficiently  established  by  the  previous  use  of  that 
name,  it  seemed  less  important  to  continue  to  repeat  it, 
and  of  more  consequence  to  guard  against  the  notion  that 
the  God  of  the  patriarchs  was  a  mere  tribal  deity  by  re- 
curring to  the  general  term  Elohim,  suggestive  of  his  re- 
lation to  the  world  at  large. 

4.  The  fuller  revelation  of  God  as  Jehovah  in  the 
Mosaic  age  threw  that  made  to  the  patriarchs  compara- 
tively into  the  shade  ;  so  that  while  in  the  beginning,  in 
contrast  with  the  times  before  Abraham,  the  patriarchal 
age  was  marked  by  new  manifestations  of  Jehovah,  those 
granted  toward  its  close  seemed  of  inferior  grade  in  com- 
parison with  the  more  resplendent  revelations  that  were 


JACOB  IN   HARAN   (CHS.   XXIX.,  XXX.)  351 

to  come  after,  and  so  more  fitly  associated  with  the  gen- 
eral term  Elohim  than  the  personal  name  Jehovah. 

The  solution  offered  by  the  critics  is  that  the  materials 
are  henceforth  largely  drawn  from  the  document  E.  But 
the  hypothesis  of  different  documents  will  not  meet  the 
case.  It  has  already  been  seen  what  confusion  it  intro- 
duces in  the  chapters  now  before  us.  It  encounters  hke 
perplexities  in  the  chapters  that  follow.  If  the  alterna- 
tion of  Elohim  and  Jehovah  is  not  in  every  instance  reg- 
ulated in  as  marked  and  conspicuous  a  manner  as  hereto- 
fore by  the  meanings  of  the  names,  there  is,  nevertheless, 
nothing  counter  to  the  general  usage  of  the  rest  of  Script- 
ure in  their  employment,  or  that  suggests  the  idea  that 
it  was  mechanically  determined  by  the  particular  docu- 
ment from  which  any  given  extract  chanced  to  be  drawn. 
In  many  cases  either  name  would  be  appropriate,  and  it 
is  at  the  option  of  the  writer  to  use  one  or  the  other. 
And  it  is  no  valid  ground  of  objection  to  the  unity  of 
Genesis  if  a  like  freedom  prevails  there  as  in  other 
books  of  the  Bible,  where  it  might  often  be  difficult  to 
assign  a  definite  reason  for  the  occurrence  of  Elohim 
rather  than  Jehovah,  or  vice  versa. 

The  birth  of  Jacob's  children  is  capable  of  being 
viewed  in  a  twofold  hght,  as  the  gracious  gift  of  Jeho- 
vah, the  God  of  the  chosen  race,  who  watched  over  and 
directed  its  enlargement,  or  as  blessings  bestowed  in  the 
ordinary  providence  of  God.  Leah's  first  children, 
granted  to  her  notwithstanding  the  disfavor  of  her  hus- 
band, are  viewed  under  the  former  aspect  (xxix.  31-35). 
Those  that  follow,  in  ch.  xxx.,  are  regarded  under  the  lat- 
ter aspect,  y\z.,  the  children  of  the  handmaids,  sprung 
from  the  jealous  strife  of  Jacob's  wives  ;  those  of  Leah ' 

'Note  Leah's  lingering  heathenism  in  her  allusions  to  "fortune" 
(Gad)  and  "good  luck"  (Ashera)  (vs.  11-13);  and  Rachel's  theft  of 
her  father's  images  (xxxi.  30,  34). 


352  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   ISAAC 

after  she  had.  bargained  for  her  husband's  presence ;  and 
Rachel's  son,  born  after  her  long  envy  and  impatience. 
Upon  his  birth  she  gives  utterance  to  her  hope  that  her 
husband's  God,  Jehovah,  would  add  to  her  yet  another. 
Thus  both  Elohim  and  Jehovah  are  associated  with  chil- 
dren of  both  Leah  and  Rachel ;  and  Jehovah  begins  and 
ends  the  series,  encircling  the  whole  and  enclosing  the 
providential  favors  granted  between  these  limits. 

If  any  object  that  this  appears  to  be  an  artificial  ar- 
rangement it  can  at  least  be  said  that  the  critics  have 
nothing  better  to  propose.  The  narrative  of  these  suc- 
cessive births  is  plainly  one  and  indivisible,  and  cannot 
be  rent  asunder  and  converted  into  such  a  piece  of  patch- 
work as  they  are  obliged  to  make  of  it.  The  style  and 
method  are  the  same,  the  language  and  phrases  are  the 
same,  the  narrative  is  continuous,  each  part  being  bound 
to  and  implying  the  others.  So  that  even  Vater,^  with 
all  his  predilection  for  the  fragment  hypothesis,  en- 
ters his  protest  against  subdivision  here,  and  against  the 
assumption  on  which  it  rests,  that  the  same  writer  could 
not  use  both  Elohim  and  Jehovah  ;  an  assumption  that 
is  falsified  by  nearly  every  book  in  the  Bible.  Delitzsch 
holds  that  "the  interchange  of  divine  names  is  based 
upon  the  interchange  of  sources  from  which  extracts  are 
taken,"  and  then  annuls  the  ground  upon  which  this 
opinion  rests  by  the  admission  that  "the  author  of  Gen- 
esis has  intentionally  woven  both  divine  names  into  the 
origin  of  Israel,  and  it  is  probably  also  not  accidental 
that  the  name  Jehovah  is  imj^ressed  on  the  first  four 
births,  and  the  name  Elohim  on  the  remaining  seven. 
On  the  whole,  we  are  to  get  the  impression  that  in  laying 
the  foundation  of  Israel  Jehovah's  fidelity  to  his  prom- 
ises and  Elohim's  miracle-working  power  wrought  in 
combination." 

'  Peutateucli,  ii.,  p.  724. 


JACOB   IN   HARAN   (CHS,   XXIX.,    XXX.)  353 

It  remains  to  be  added  that  in  xxx.  2,  where  Jacob 
says,  "  Am  I  in  God's  stead,"  Elohim  is  evidently  in 
place  from  the  suggested  contrast  of  God  and  man.  So 
ver.  8,  where  Rachel  says,  "  wdth  wrestlings  of  God  have 
I  wrestled,"  whether  the  genitive  is  that  of  the  object, 
i.e.,  wrestlings  after  God,  after  a  token  of  the  divine 
favor  in  giving  me  a  child,  or  that  of  the  subject,  i.e.,  di-' 
vine  or  superhuman  wrestlings.  In  either  case  Elohim 
is  the  proper  word.  But  in  vs.  27,  30,  Jehovah  is  appro- 
priate because  Laban,  though  not  of  the  chosen  race, 
recognizes  that  it  was  Jacob's  God  who  had  blessed  him 
for  Jacob's  sake. 

MARKS   OF   J 

1.  b  TiES  tvhich  belong  to  (xxix.  9) ;  besides  repeated  in 
J,  but  also  in  E  (xxxi.  21 ;  xxxii.  24  (E.  V.  ver.  23) ;  xli. 
43 ;  xlv.  10,  11) ;  xl.  5b,  and  xlvi.  1  are  cut  out  of  E  con- 
texts and  assigned  to  J. 

2.  n^npb  f^n  rim  to  meet  (ver.  13).  This  particular 
expression  occurs  three  times  besides  in  the  Hexateuch, 
and  is  each  time  referred  to  J,  viz.,  xviii.  2 ;  xxiv.  17  ; 
xxxiii.  4 ;  but  both  the  words  occur  in  E,  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  any  Hebrew  writer  might  not  have  used  them 
if  he  had  occasion  to  do  so.  See  chs.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  16. 

3.  "intone  ''ttsy  my  hone  and  my  JlesTi  (ver.  14).  A  like 
expression  occurs  in  ii.  23  J,  but  nowhere  else  in  the 
Hexateuch.  It  is  used,  however,  by  other  writers  also 
(Judg.  ix.  2 ;  2  Sam.  v.  1 ;  xix.  13,  14,  E.  Y.,  vs.  12,  13). 

4.  nnso  handmaid  (xxix.  24,  29 ;  xxx.  4,  7,  9,  10,  12, 
18,  43).  This  word  is  said  to  be  characteristic  of  P  and 
J,  as  opposed  to  E,  who  uses  n'QiJ  maid,  as  xxx.  3.  It  oc- 
curs, however,  several  times  in  these  chapters  in  what 
the  critics  consider  wrong  connections,  and  the  corrective 
is  unhesitatingly  applied  by   exscinding   the   offending 

23 


354  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

clause.  Thus  in  xxix.  24,  29,  it  is  found  in  an  E  connec- 
tion, and  these  isolated  verses  are  cut  out  and  given  to  P, 
where  they  are  quite  unmeaning,  and  there  is  nothing 
with  which  to  connect  them.  They  evidently  belong 
where  they  stand  as  preparatory  for  xxx.  4,  9.  It  is  a 
mere  evasion  to  sunder  these  verses  from  their  proper 
context  because  of  the  manifest  reference  to  them  and 
theiT  repetition  in  identical  terms  in  xlvi.  18,  25  P,  which 
is  at  variance  with  the  critics'  hypothesis.  Wellhausen 
erases  the  word,  "  Rachel's  handmaid  "  from  xxxi.  7,  as 
an  insertion  by  R,  because  he  gives  the  verse  to  E ;  Dill- 
mann  suffers  the  words  to  stand  because  he  assigns  the 
verse  to  J,  But  both  these  critics  agree  that  R  must 
have  substituted  nnsip  for  rrax  in  xxxi.  18,  which  they 
refer  to  E.  The  occurrence  of  TVatH  maid,  in  xxx.  3,  is  not 
indicative  of  a  particular  document  E ;  Rachel,  in  offer- 
ing her  bondmaid  nnstp  to  Jacob  as  a  concubine,  uses 
the  less  servile  term.  See  ch.  xx.,  Marks  of  E,  No.  1 ; 
xxi.  1-21,  Marks  of  E,  No.  11. 

5.  "jn  '^ns^'D  i5:"DS5  if  now  I  have  found  favor  (xxx.  27). 
See  ch"  xii.  16-20,  Marks  of  J,  No.  *3 ;  ch.  vi.  1-8,  No.  10. 

6.  !3b;\2i  for  ilie  sake  of  (ver.  27).  See  ch.  xii.  10-20, 
Marks'of  J,  No.  6. 

7.  1^12  break  forth,  increase  (vs.  30,  43).  See  ch. 
xxviii.  iO-22,  Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

MAKKS   OF   E 

1.  n'ibto'a  umges  (xxix.  15).  This  is  reckoned  an  E 
word,  though  in  the  Hexateuch  it  only  occurs  besides  in 
xxxi.  7,  41  E.  It  is  here  used  interchangeably  with  its 
equivalent  from  the  same  root,  1DT0,  which  is  found  alike 
in  E  (xxx.  18 ;  xxxi.  8  bis ;  Ex.  ii.  9  ;  xxii.  14 ;  E.  V.,  15) ; 
in  J  (xxx.  28,  32,  33) ;  in  JE  (xv.  1) ;  in  P  (Num.  xviii. 
31)  ;  and  in  D  (Deut.  xv.  18 ;  xxiv.  15). 


JACOB   IN   HARAN   (CHS.    XXIX.,    XXX.)  355 

2.  nbn>,  nrjp  in  respect  to  age,  elder,  younger  (xxix.  16, 
18).  These  words  are  here  attributed  to  E  in  contrast 
with  m''D3,  tl^'^y^,  which  are  supposed  to  belong  to  J. 
But  as  these  latter  words  occur  (ver.  26)  in  an  E  context, 
it  is  necessary  to  cut  this  verse  out  of  its  connection  and 
give  it  to  J  for  this  reason  alone.  But  these  alleged  E 
words  are  nowhere  else  regarded  as  such,  biia  elder,  is 
assigned  to  J  (x.  21 ;  xxvii.  15 ;  xliv.  12)  ;  to  JE  (xxvii. 
1,  42).  pp  younger,  occurs  in  J  (ix.  24  ;  xxvii.  15  ;  xliv. 
12,  20) ;  in  JE  (xxvii.  42).  If,  now,  upon  the  critics'  own 
partition  of  the  text,  J  uses  both  pairs  of  words,  how 
can  either  pair  be  regarded  as  an  indication  of  a  different 
document?     See  ch.  xix.  29-38,  Marks  of  J,  No.  1,  2. 

3.  njSl'a  nS'^'l  IX'n  ns''  fair  of  form  and  fair  to  look 
upon  (xxix.  17).  The  entire  expression  occurs  but  once 
besides,  viz.,  xxxix.  6,  which  is  referred  to  J ;  "  fair  to 
look  upon  "  occurs  in  J  (xii.  11) ;  in  E  (xli.  2,  4, 18)  ;  "fair 
of  form  "  occurs  but  once  more  in  the  Hexateuch,  viz., 
Dent.  xxi.  11  D.     See  ch.  xxiv.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  13. 

It  will  be  observed  that  not  one  of  these  so-called  E 
words  or  phrases  is  peculiar  to  that  document ;  and  such 
as  they  are,  they  are  all  taken  from  xxix.  15-18.  The 
ouly  other  words  adduced  from  the  entire  two  chapters 
as  belonging  to  E,  and  suggestive  of  E  paragraphs,  are 
Elohim,  TVaHi  maid  (xxx.  3 ;  see  above,  Marks  of  J,  No.  4), 
and  two  expressions  in  xxix.  1,  which  occur  nowhere  else 
in  the  Hexateuch,  either  in  J  or  E,  viz.,  "  lifted  up  his 
feeV  (E.  v.,  went  on  his  journey),  "  land  of  the  children  of 
the  east.'"  It  is  said  that  this  region  is  called  Paddan- 
aram  by  P,  and  Aram-naharaim  (xxiv.  10)  by  J,  conse- 
quently this  third  designation  must  be  that  of  E.  But 
if  J  can  call  the  same  place  Haran  (xxix.  4)  and  the  city 
of  Nahor  (xxiv.  10),  why  may  he  not  use  more  than  one 
designation  for  the  region  in  which  it  stood  ?  See  under 
ch.  xxiv.,  p.  298. 


856  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

Dillmann  points  out  three  E  words,  as  he  considers 
them,  in  the  midst  of  a  paragraph  assigned  to  J,  viz., 
D"^i:nn  gutters  (xxx.  38,  41),  as  Ex.  ii.  16  E;  llj^ri  lie-goat 
(xxx.  35),  as  xxxii.  15  (E.  V.,  14)  E ;  ^py  ring-streaked, 
(xxx.  35,  39, 40),  as  xxxi.  8,  10,  12  E.  The' adoption  of  E 
words  and  phrases  by  J  here  and  frequently  elsewhere, 
together  with  the  close  correspondence  between  J  and  E 
in  matter  and  form,  which  must  be  assumed  in  this  chap- 
ter, and  in  many  other  passages  of  like  character,  makes 
it  necessary,  so  Dillmann  infers,  to  suppose  that  J  was 
in  possession  of  the  document  E,  and  made  use  of  it  in 
preparing  his  own  work.  Knobel  and  Kayser  go  far- 
ther, and  find  it  unnecessary  to  assume  the  existence  of 
a  redactor  to  combine  the  separate  documents  of  J  and 
E,  preferring  to  regard  the  combined  work  JE  as  the 
production  of  J  who  had  E  (or  a  similar  source  differently 
named  by  Knobel)  before  him,  and  incorporated  such  por- 
tions of  it  as  he  saw  fit.  AVellhausen  objects  that  J  must 
have  been  entirely  independent  of  E  ;  for,  if  he  drew  from 
E,  he  would  not  have  varied  from  it  and  contradicted  it 
in  so  many  instances.  There  is  a  measure  of  truth  in  the 
position  taken  by  each  of  these  critics.  If  such  docu- 
ments as  are  attributed  to  J  and  E  ever  existed,  there 
are  abundant  indications  that  J  must  have  been  ac- 
quainted with  E.  And  if  so,  Wellhausen  is  right  in 
holding  that  he  could  not  have  been  guilty  of  introduc- 
ing such  glaring  discrepancies  into  his  own  work  as  the 
critics  profess  to  find  there.  Whether  the  combination 
was  effected  by  J  or  by  a  redactor,  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other  could  have  been  so  senseless  as  to  insert  palpa- 
ble contradictions  in  what  he  put  forth  as  credible  his- 
tory. And  in  fact  these  alleged  discrepancies  and  con- 
tradictions prove  upon  examination  not  to  be  such,  but 
to  be  capable  of  ready  reconciliation.  And  as  these  sup- 
ply the  principal  argument  for  the  separate  existence  of 


RETURN   FROM   HARAN   (CHS.   XXXI.-XXXII.  3)      357 

J  and  E,  the  main  prop  of  this  portion  of  the  hypothesis 
collapses  with  their  disappearance  ;  and  it  becomes  easy 
to  see  how  J  can  use  E  words,  and  show  familiarity  with 
the  contents  of  E  sections,  if  J  and  E  are  identical. 

Jacob's  return  from  haean  (chs.  xxxi.-xxxii.  3;  e.  v., 

VER.    2) 

Chapter  xxxi.  1-43  is  by  the  critics  mainly  assigned 
to  E  on  account  of  the  repeated  occurrence  of  Elohim, 
its  alleged  contrariety  to  ch.  xxx.,  and  the  revelations  in 
dreams  to  Jacob  (vs.  11  sqq.)  and  Labau  (ver.  24)  ;  also 
the  reference  in  ver.  13  to  xxviii.  20  sqq.,  which  we  have 
no  disposition  to  dispute.  While  this  passage  is  as- 
signed by  the  critics  to  E,  it  has  already  been  shown  to 
be  intimately  connected  with  xxx.  31  sqq.,  with  which  it 
is  entirely  consistent,  and  from  which  the  attempt  is 
vainly  made  to  sunder  it. 

It  is  claimed  that  while  this  paragraph  is  for  the  most 
part  from  E,  vs.  1,  3,  21b,  25,  27  are  insertions  from  J. 
But  ver.  2  is  not  an  idle  repetition  of  ver.  1 ;  it  is  addi- 
tional to  it.  Laban  as  well  as  his  sons  had  become  dis- 
affected toward  Jacob.  In  speaking  to  his  wives  (ver.  5) 
he  only  mentions  their  father's  disfavor,  because  this  was 
of  supreme  consequence  to  himself,  and  made  it  plainly 
undesirable  for  him  to  remain  longer  in  his  service. 
Both  vs.  1  and  2  prepare  the  way  for  Jehovah's  direction 
to  Jacob  to  return  to  the  land  of  his  fathers  (ver.  3), 
which  stands  in  no  special  relation  to  ver.  1,  as  the 
scheme  of  the  critics  implies.  Nor  does  ver.  3  interrupt 
the  connection.  It  supplies  the  occasion  of  Jacob's  sum- 
moning Eachel  and  Leah  (ver.  4) ;  and  ver.  5  explicitly 
refers  to  and  repeats  the  language  of  both  ver.  2  and  ver. 
3.  It  is  true  that  ver.  3  has  "  Jehovah,"  which  is  unwel- 
come to  the  critics  here,  but  it  cannot  be  helj^ed.     It  is 


358  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

precisely  equivalent  to  "  the  God  of  my  father  "  (ver.  5). 
The  verse  is  appropriate  and  required  where  it  stands, 
and  Jacob  adopts  its  very  words  (ver.  13)  in  reciting  at 
length  to  his  wives  what  is  briefly  and  summarily  stated 
in  this  verse. 

The  middle  clause  of  ver.  21  is  no  superfluous  repeti- 
tion. The  account  of  Jacob's  leaving  (vs.  17,  18)  is  in- 
terrupted by  a  necessary  digression  (vs.  19,  20)  explain- 
ing that  it  was  without  Laban's  knowledge.  Yerse  21a 
resumes  the  notice  of  this  departure  ;  21b  repeats  the 
opening  words  of  ver.  17  to  add  that  he  crossed  the 
Euphrates ;  21c  states  the  direction  of  his  flight.  All 
proceeds  regularly  and  naturally.  On  the  ground  that 
it  would  have  been  impossible  to  reach  Gilead  from  Ha- 
ran  in  seven  days  ^  (ver.  23),  Dillmaun  infers  that  La- 
ban's  residence  must,  in  E's  account,  have  been  much 
nearer  to  Gilead  than  Haran,  and  that  he  must  either 
have  meant  some  other  river  than  the  Euphrates  in  ver. 
21,  or  else  "  he  rose  up  and  passed  over  the  river"  must 
have  been  taken  from  J.  To  which  Delitzsch  replies  that 
Laban's  home  was  in  Haran,  according  to  both  J  and  E  ; 
so  that  in  any  event  this  affords  no  argument  for  critical 
partition.  As  to  the  accuracy  of  the  statement  the  histo- 
rian is  responsible.  It  should  not,  however,  be  forgotten 
that  there  is  some  indefiniteness  in  the  localities.  Laban 
may  have  been  with  his  sheep  at  some  distance  from 
Haran  (ver.  19) ;  and  the  limits  of  Gilead  are  not  clearly 
defined. 

That  Laban's  pursuit  was  successful  is  summarily 
stated  (ver.  23b).  Then  further  details  are  given :  La- 
ban's dream  before  he  came  up  with  Jacob  (ver.  24)  ;  La- 
ban's overtaking  Jacob,  and  the  respective  location  of  the 
two  parties  (ver.  25).    There  is  no  doublet  here  any  more 

'  In  his  first  edition  Dillmann  did  not  seem  to  think  this  impossible, 
but  simply  that  it  would  require  "  very  vigorous  "  marching. 


KETURN   FROM   HARAN   (CHS.   XXXI. -XXXII.  3)      359 

than  there  is  in  the  various  instances  of  a  like  nature 
which  have  been  reviewed  before.  Nor  is  ver.  27  a  doub- 
let of  ver.  26.  If  the  repetition  of  a  thought  so  prom- 
inent in  Laban's  mind  offends  the  critics,  how  is  it  that 
they  can  refer  ver.  27,  with  its  triple  repetition,  to  a  sin- 
gle writer  ? 

According  to  Wellhausen  vs.  10,  12  is  an  interpola- 
tion of  imcertain  origin.  Dillmann,  who  deals  largely 
in  transpositions  to  accomplish  critical  ends  or  to  relieve 
fancied  difficulties,  thinks  that  E  took  them  from  a  nar- 
rative of  E,  which  he  had  omitted  in  its  proper  place, 
and  inserted  them  here  rather  inappropriately  in  this 
address  of  Jacob  to  his  wives.  What  motive  he  could 
have  had  for  such  a  piece  of  stupidity  we  are  not  in- 
formed. The  genuineness  of  the  verses  is  saved,  but  it 
is  at  the  expense  of  E's  good  sense.  It  may  be,  how- 
ever, that  the  writer  thought  these  verses  appropriate, 
whether  the  critics  do  or  not. 

There  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  revelation  as  re- 
corded in  ver.  3  and  as  subsequently  related  by  Jacob 
(vs.  11-13).  When  a  writer  has  occasion  to  speak  of 
the  same  matter  in  different  connections  three  courses 
are  open  to  him.  He  may  narrate  it  both  times  in  all  its 
details,  he  may  narrate  it  fully  in  the  first  instance  and 
refer  to  it  more  briefly  afterward,  or  he  may  content 
himself  with  a  brief  statement  at  first  and  reserve  the  de- 
tails until  he  recurs  to  it  again.  In  the  directions  to 
build  the  tabernacle  minute  specifications  are  given 
(Ex.  XXV.  10-ch.  XXX.)  ;  in  its  actual  construction  all  the 
details  are  stated  afresh  (xxxvi.  8-ch.  xxxix.),  the  sa- 
credness  of  the  edifice  making  it  essential  to  note  the  ex- 
actness with  which  the  divine  directions  were  carried  into 
effect  in  every  particular.  Detailed  directions  are  given 
for  building  the  ark  (Gen.  vi.  14  sqq.),  but  in  recording 
its  construction  the  general  statement  is  deemed  suffi- 


360  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

cieut  that  Noah  did  as  he  was  commanded  (ver.  22). 
Pharaoh's  dreams,  because  of  their  importance  in  the 
history,  are  twice  narrated  in  full  and  ahnost  identical 
language  (Gen.  xli.  1-7,  17-24).  So  the  dream  of  Laban 
(xxxi.  24,  29),  the  story  of  Abraham's  servant  (xxiv.  3 
sqq.,  37  sqq.),  the  fiats  of  creation  (Gen.  cli.  i.).  But  the 
dreams  of  Josej^h  (xxxvii.  5  sqq.)  and  of  Pharaoh's  ser- 
vants (xl.  5,  9  sqq.)  are  simply  mentioned  as  facts  and 
the  details  reserved  until  they  come  to  be  narrated  by 
the  dreamers. 

In  the  instance  at  present  before  us  instead  of  twice 
recording  the  divine  communication  made  to  Jacob  in  all 
its  details,  the  writer  simply  states  at  first  that  Jehovah 
directed  Jacob  to  return  to  the  land  of  his  fathers  (xxxi. 
3),  leaving  a  more  minute  account  of  the  whole  matter 
to  be  introduced  subsequently  in  a  recital  by  Jacob.  It 
is  entirely  appropriate  in  the  connection  that  the  revela- 
tion here  made  to  Jacob  should  concern  both  his  rela- 
tion to  Laban  and  his  return  to  Canaan.  The  only 
seeming  difliculty  is  created  by  the  needless  assumption 
that  things  are  combined  in  it  which  belong  to  difierent 
periods  of  time ;  that  what  is  said  respecting  the  cattle 
must  belong  to  the  early  period  of  Laban's  dealings  with 
Jacob,  ^  while  it  is  united  in  the  same  dream  with  the 
command  to  return  to  Canaan.  The  dream  is  retrospec- 
tive and  was  intended  to  teach  Jacob  that  while  he  had 
been  rel^dng  upon  his  own  arts  to  increase  his  compensa- 
tion, the  true  cause  of  his  prosperity  was  to  be  found  in 
the  favor  of  God.  And  this  shows  why  the  arts  of 
Jacob  are  detailed  in  ch.  xxx.  without  allusion  to  the  di- 

'  ]SS2n  DH''  ni?  (ver.  10)  denotes  a  season  of  the  year,  the  time  of 
copulation  of  flocks,  and  should  be  rendered  "  the  time  when  flocks 
conceive,"  as  a  usual  thing,  rather  than  "  conceived,"  as  though  the 
reference  were  to  a  definite  event  in  the  past.  It  is  as  applicable, 
therefore,  to  the  last  year  of  Jacob's  abode  with  Laban  as  to  any  that 
had  preceded. 


EETURN    FROM    HAKAX    (CHS.    XXXI.-XXXII.  3)      361 

vine  agency,  the  latter  being  alone  insisted  on  in  ch.  xxxi. 
It  is  not  that  these  have  proceeded  from  distinct  writers 
who  had  different  conceptions  of  the  transaction.  It  is 
simply  that  the  writer  designed  to  lead  his  readers  to  the 
true  result  by  the  same  route  through  which  Jacob  him- 
self passed,  without  any  premature  explanation.^  Well- 
hausen  alleges  that  the  words  of  the  divine  angel  must 
have  begun  with  the  words  "I  am  the  God,"  etc.  (ver. 
13) ;  but  this  is  disposed  of  by  a  reference  to  Ex.  iii.  4- 
6.  Dillmann  remarks  that  E  uses  'I'la  grisled  (xxxi.  10, 
12j,  where  J  has  s^^b'J  sjJecMed  (xxx.  32,  33),  which  sim- 
ply shows,  not  that  there  are  two  writers,  in  which  case 
the  identical  expressions  in  these  verses  could  be  less 
easily  accounted  for,  but  that  the  writer  was  not  aiming 
at  a  nice  precision  in  regard  to  terms  so  closely  akin. 
Dillmann  also  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  J  (xxx. 
35)  IpV  ring -streaked,  and  lp;  speckled,  are  used  inter- 
changeably, while  in  E  (xxxi.  8-10,  12)  they  are  distin- 
guished ;  but  that  this  is  no  ground  for  critical  partition 
is  plain,  since  they  are  similarly  distinguished  in  J  (xxx. 
39). 

Verse  18  (except  the  first  clause)  is  assigned  to  P.     It 

'  Kuenen,  Hexateuch,  p.  235,  remarks  upon  these  passages  :  "  Gen. 
xxx.  28-43  and  xxxi.  4-13  explain  Jacob's  great  wealth  by  his  own 
canning  and  by  the  care  of  Elohim  respectively.  The  former  is  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  the  uniform  representation  of  Jacob's  character. 
Can  the  latter  be  anything  but  an  ethico  religious  improvement  upon 
it  ?  For  observe  that  the  mutual  agreement  of  the  two  passages  forbids 
us  to  regard  them  as  independent,  so  that  one  must  in  any  case  b"e  a 
transformation  of  the  other."  Kuenen's  conclusion  that  the  E  passage 
is  a  later  improvement  upon  that  of  J  is  in  direct  conflict  with  Dill- 
mann's  contention  that  E  is  the  earlier  document,  from  which  J  re- 
peatedly borrows.  The  intimate  mutual  relation  of  the  passages  re- 
spectively assigned  to  J  and  E  is  confessed  by  both  these  critics. 
Kuenen  has  here  mistaken  a  later  stage  in  Jacob's  own  understanding 
of  the  secret  of  his  success  for  a  second  and  modified  form  of  the  trans- 
action itself. 


362  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

has  the  usual  phrases  of  patriarchal  removals  (cf.  xii.  5  ; 
xiii.  6  ;  xxxvi.  6,  7  ;  xlvi.  6).  The  resemblance  between 
these  verses  is  certainly  such  as  to  suggest  their  common 
origin ;  and  the  critics  refer  them  uniformly  to  P,  but 
upon  what  ground  it  is  difficult  to  see.  It  is  at  variance 
with  the  connection  in  every  individual  case ;  xii.  5, 
xiii.  6  are  torn  from  a  J  context ;  xxxi.  18,  xlvi.  6  from  an 
E  context/  and  the  context  of  xxxvi.  6,  7,  is  disputed. 
The  minute  specification  of  particulars,  alleged  to  be 
characteristic  of  P,  is  no  greater  than  in  xxxii.  6,  23  (E. 
V.  vs.  5,  22)  J,  xxxiv.  28,  29  R,  taken  perhaps  from  E,  xlv. 
10  E  or  J.  Of  the  words  and  phrases  in  these  verses  said 
to  be  indicative  of  P,  not  one  is  peculiar  to  him.  "  Togo 
to  his  father  "  (ver.  18)  links  it  ■v\dth  xxxv.  27  P  indeed, 
but  equally  with  xxviii.  31  E.  No  good  reason  can  be 
given  why  these  verses  should  not  be  reckoned  an  integral 
part  of  the  context  in  which  they  are  found.  This  is 
particularly  so  in  this  instance,  in  which  the  presence  of 
E  words  ^  at  the  beginning  makes  it  necessary  to  divide 
the  sentence,  leaving  only  an  incomplete  fragment  for  P, 
in  which  nevertheless  one  of  these  very  words  (TOP'S) 
recurs,  as  it  does  also  in  a  like  connection,  xxxvi.  6. 

HIATUS   IN   THE   DOCUMENT   P 

But  accepting  the  partition  on  the  sole  dictum  of  the 
critics,  the  result  is  an  enormous  gap  in  P.     He  makes 

• '  The  supplement  hypothesis,  which  identified  E  and  P,  had  a  basis 
here  for  the  reference  of  these  verses  to  the  "  Grundschrift,"  which 
the  present  critical  hypothesis  has  not. 

^  '!^'2'p'l2  cattle,  is  claimed  for  J  or  JE  ;  ^HS  carried  away,  which  re- 
curs in  E,  ver.  26,  with  explicit  reference  to  this  passage,  and  is  found 
besides  in  the  Hexateuch  (except  twice  in  Deut.),  Ex.  iii.  1.  ;  xiv.  25  E  ; 
Ex.  X.  13  J.  If  to  avoid  mutilating  the  sentence  the  whole  verse  is  given 
to  P,  the  argument  from  the  JE  use  of  these  words  elsewhere  is  con- 
fessed to  be  worthless. 


RETURN   FROM   HARAN   (CHS.    XXXl.-XXXil.  3)      363 

no  mention  of  Jacob's  arrival  in  Paddan-aram,  or  of  his 
residence  there,  or  anything  that  occurred  dui'iug  his  stay 
in  that  region,  not  even  of  his  marriage,  the  one  sole  pur- 
pose for  which  he  went,  as  the  critics  understand  P,  or 
of  the  birth  of  his  children,  or  of  his  accumvilation  of 
property.  There  are  only  the  disconnected  and  conse- 
quently unmeaning  statements  (xxix.  24,  29)  that  Laban 
gave  maids  to  his  two  daughters,  and  (xxx.  22)  that  God 
remembered  Rachel.  But  what  either  the  daughters  or 
their  maids  had  to  do  with  the  life  of  Jacob  does  not 
appear.  And  now  Jacob  is  returning  with  cattle  and 
property  to  which  there  has  been  no  previous  allusion, 
and  no  suggestion  of  how  they  were  obtained,  but  no 
hint  that  he  had  a  family.^  J  and  E  supply  what  is  lack- 
ing, though  a  marriage  was  no  part  of  the  purpose  with 
which,  according  to  them,  Jacob  left  his  home.  And 
further,  P  at  a  later  time  (xxxv.  22b-26)  recites  the  names 
of  Jacob's  children  in  the  order  of  their  birth,  and  refers 
them  to  their  different  mothers  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  detailed  account  in  JE,  which  is  thus  presupposed. 
What  the  critics  sunder  from  P  is  thus  an  essential  part 
of  his  narrative.  And  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  resort 
again  to  the  assumption  that  P  did  write  just  such  an 
account  as  we  find  in  J  and  E,  but  B,  has  not  preserved 
it.  Nevertheless  R,  who  has  here  dropped  P's  entire 
story  at  a  most  important  epoch,  that  which  laid  the 
foundation  for  the  tribal  division  of  Israel,  and  thus  re- 
duced his  narrative  to  incoherent  fragments,  elsewhere 
introduces  clauses  and  sentences  which  in  the  judgment 
of  the  critics  are  quite  superfluous  repetitions  of  what 

'  Noldeke  endeavored  to  account  for  this  vast  chasm  in  P  by  the 
wholly  gratuitous  assumption  that  the  narrative  of  P  was  inconsistent 
with  that  of  J  and  E,  and  R  omitted  it  for  that  reason.  The  supple- 
ment hypothesis,  which  made  E  and  P  one  document,  here  again  es- 
caped this  incongruity. 


364  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

had  been  more  fully  stated  before,  for  the  mere  sake  of 
preserving  everything  contained  in  his  sources.^ 

But  the  strangest  feature  of  P's  account,  as  conceived 
by  the  critics,  is  thus  clearly  and  succinctly  stated  by 
Dr.  Harper :  "  The  absence  of  the  theological  element 
is  quite  conspicuous  :  (1)  The  daily  life  of  the  patriarchs 
(with  the  exception  of  a  few  special  and  formal  the- 
ophanies)  is  barren  of  all  religious  worship.  (2)  This  is 
especially  noticeable  in  the  case  of  Jacob ;  he  leaves 
home  to  seek  for  the  wife  who  is  to  be  the  mother  of 
Israel;  he  sojourns  many  years  in  the  land  from  which 
Abram  was  by  special  command  sent  away ;  he  marries 
according  to  the  instruction  of  his  parents,  and  begets 
the  children  who  are  to  become  the  tribes  of  Israel — still 
no  sacrifice  or  offering  is  made  to  God  for  his  providen- 
tial care,  not  even  a  prayer  is  addressed  to  the  Deity. 
(3)  Nor  does  God,  on  his  part,  descend  to  take  part  or 
interest  in  human  affairs ;  He  gives  no  encouragement  to 
Jacob  as  he  leaves  home,  nor  does  he  send  any  word  to 
him  to  return."  ^ 

This  comes  near  enough  to  the  "  unthinkable  "  to  be  a 
refutation  of  that  critical  analysis  which  is  responsible 
for  such  a  result.  P  is  the  priestly  narrator,  to  -whom 
the  ordinances  of  worship  are  supremely  sacred,  and  they 
absorb  his  whole  interest ;  whose  history  of  the  patri- 
archs is  only  preliminary  and  subsidiary  to  the  law  regu- 
lating the  services  of  the  sanctuary.  The  patriarchs  are 
to  him  the  heroes  and  the  models  of  Israel,  whom,  we 
are  told,  he  is  so  intent  upon  glorifying  that  he  reports 
none  of  their  weaknesses,  no  strifes,  no  act  of  disingenu- 
ousness,  no  strange  gods  in  their  households,  nothing 

'  E.g.,  vii.  13-15,  17,  22,  23  ;  viii.  2b,  3a  ;  xiii.  6  ;  xix.  29,  not  to  speak 
of  the  innumerable  doublets  which  the  critics  fancy  that  they  have  dis- 
covered. 

2  Hebraica,  v.  4,  p.  276. 


nETURW   FROM   HARAN   (CHS.    XXXI.-XXXII.  3)       365 

low  or  degrading.  He  singles  out  for  prominent  mention 
the  sabbath  (ii.  2,  3) ;  the  prohibition  of  eating  blood  (ix. 
4) ;  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  (xvii.  10  sqq.).  God 
appears  to  Abraham  and  establishes  his  covenant  with 
him  and  with  his  seed,  with  the  express  condition  of  his 
walking  before  him  and  being  perfect,  i.e.,  whole-hearted 
in  his  service  (xvii.  1  sqq.).  And  yet  P's  account  of  the 
patriarchs,  as  the  critics  furnish  it  to  us,  is  almost  abso- 
lutely denuded  of  any  religious  character.  Is  P  really  so 
absurd  and  self-contradictory,  or  have  the  critics  made  a 
mistake  in  their  partition  ? 

THE   COVENANT   OF  LABAN   AND  JACOB 

The  account  of  the  covenant  between  Laban  and  Jacob 
(vs.  44-54)  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  critics,  a  mass  of 
doublets  and  glosses.  There  are  two  monuments,  a  pil- 
lar (ver.  45)  and  a  heap  of  stones  (ver.  46) ;  two  covenant 
meals  (vs.  46b,  54)  ;  two  names  with  their  respective  ety- 
mologies (vs.  48,  49)  ;  two  (or  rather  three)  appeals  to 
God  to  watch,  witness,  and  judge  between  them  (vs.  49, 
50,  53)  ;  and  the  substance  of  the  contract  is  stated 
twice,  and  in  different  terms  (vs.  50,  52).  The  symmetry 
of  this  statement  is  somewhat  spoiled  by  the  triplicity  of 
one  of  the  items.  But  the  passage  would  seem,  to  afford 
ample  scope  for  critical  acumen.  There  has,  however, 
been  great  divergence  in  the  results  that  have  been 
reached,  and  no  partition  that  has  been  devised  has 
proved  generally  satisfactory.^     Dillmann,   who  in  the 

'  Astruc,  followed  by  Sclirader,  gives  vs.  48-50  to  the  Jehovist,  and 
the  remainder  to  the  Elohist.  Eichhorn,  and  after  him  Tuch,  limits 
the  Jehovist  to  ver.  49.  Ilgen  gives  the  whole  passage  to  the  second 
Elohist,  except  vs.  48,  49,  which  he  throws  out  of  the  text  as  a  later 
gloss,  and  makes  several  transpositions  in  order  to  obtain  what  he  con- 
siders a  more  suitable  arrangement. 

Other   critics   divide   as  follows  :    Knobel    (Commentary) :    Ancient 


366  THE   GENERATIOISrS    OF   ISAAC 

maiu  here  adopts  the  division  of  Wellhauseii,  assigns  vs. 
46,  48-50  to  J,  who  accordingly  tells  of  the  heap  of 
stones  in  pledge  that  Jacob  would  treat  his  wives  as  he 
should,  with  some  dislocations,  to  be  sure,  which  Dill- 
mann  corrects  as  usual  by  the  necessary  transpositions  ; 
the  covenant  meal  (ver.  46b),  and  the  naming  of  the  heap 
(ver.  48b),  ought  in  his  opinion  to  come  after  the  engage- 
ment (ver.  50).  Of  course  K  is  charged  with  having  re- 
moved these  clauses  from  their  proper  place,  and  no 
very  good  reason  is  given  for  his  having  done  so.  E  (vs. 
45,  47,  51-54)  records  the  erection  of  a  pillar  as  a  boun- 
dary between  the  Hebrews  on  the  one  side  and  the  Ara- 
maeans on  the  other. 

But  Delitzsch  mars  this  arrangement  by  calling  atten- 
tion to  Jehovah  in  ver.  49,  and  Elohim  in  ver.  50,  show- 
ing that  both  J  and  E  related  Jacob's  pledge  in  relation 
to  his  wives  ;  also  to  the  triple  combination  of  the  heap 
and  the  pillar  in  vs.  51,  52,  showing  that  J  and  E  also 
united  in  fixing  the  boundary  between  Laban  and  Jacob. 
So  that  it  appears  after  all  that  there  were  not  two  cove- 
nants, but  two  stipulations  in  the  same  covenant.  Dill- 
mann  is  further  constrained  to  confess  that  E  speaks  of  a 

Source,  vs.  45,  46,  48-50,  53b.  J.  vs.  47,  51,  52,  53a.  (Appendix): 
First  Source,  vs.  44,  48-50,  53,  54.  Second  Source,  vs.  45-47,  51,  52. 

Hupfeld  :  E,  vs.  46b,  48a,  50.     J,  vs.  45,  46a.  47,  51-54,  48b,  49. 

Boehmer:  E,  vs  44,  46,  47,  51,  53  (expunging  the  "pillar"  twice), 
53b,  54a.  J,  vs.  45,  48  (And  Laban  said),  5<]a,  54b.  R,  vs.  48  (after 
the  opening  words),  49,  50. 

Kittel:  E,  vs.  45  (substitute  "  Laban  "  for  "  Jacob  "),  46,  48a,  50,  53, 
54.     J,  vs.  51,  53  (expunge  the  "pillar"  twice).     R,  vs.  48b,  49. 

Vatke :  E,  vs.  45,  47,  48a,  50,  54.     J,  vs.  46,  48b,  49,  51-53. 

Delitzsch  :  E,  vs.  45,  47,  50,  53b,  54.  J,  vs.  46,  48,  49.  JE,  inex- 
tricably combined,  vs.  51-53a.  R,  in  ver.  49,  the  words,  "  And  Miz- 
pah  ;  for." 

Kayser  gives  up  the  partition  as  impracticable,  and  says,  "  The  sepa- 
ration of  the  two  elements  cannot  be  effected  without  tearing  asunder 
the  well-ordered  counectiou." 


RETURN    FROM   HARAN   (CHS.    XXXI.-XXXII.   3)      367 

ba  "  heap  "  as  well  as  a  "  pillar  "  in  ver.  52,  inasmucli  as 
ver.  47b  is  on  critical  principles  a  doublet  of  ver.  48b, 
and  E  as  well  as  J  located  this  scene  in  Mt.  Gilead,  and 
was  concerned  to  find  an  allusion  to  its  name  in  the 
transaction.  He  clogs  his  admission  with  the  assertion 
that  E  uses  ba  in  a  different  sense  from  J,  meaning  a 
mountain  ridge  and  not  a  heap  thrown  up  by  hand.  But 
after  all  the  critical  erasures  made  for  the  purpose  this 
is  still  unproved.  He  has  merely  demonstrated  his  de- 
sire to  create  a  variance  which  does  not  exist.  And  ver. 
47,  which  he  assigns  to  E,  is  indissolubly  linked  to  ver. 
48  J. 

We  thus  have  good  critical  authority  for  saying  that 
one  and  the  same  writer  has  spoken  of  both  the  monu- 
ments and  of  both  the  contracts,  involving,  of  course,  the 
double  appeal  to  God  to  Avatch  over  their  fulfilment. 
And  from  this  there  is  no  escape  but  by  the  critical 
knife,  of  which  Wellhausen  makes  free  use  here,  as  he 
never  fails  to  do  in  an  extremity.  Yerse  47  ^  is  thrown 
out  of  the  text  as  a  piece  of  "  superfluous  learning  ;  "  but 
Dillmann  replies  that  E  calls  Laban  "  the  Aramaean  " 
(vs.  20,  24),  that  he  likewise  speaks  of  the  "  heap,"  in 
ver.  52,  and  may  have  given  an  explanation  of  the  name 
"  Gilead  ; "  ~  and  that  the  location  of  the  place  on  the 

'  Tuch,  on  the  contrary,  finds  in  the  Aramsean  name  in  this  verse  an 
apt  parallel  to  the  Aramtean  D^N  ']'1S  (for  which  Hosea  xii.  13  (E.  V. 
ver.  12)  substitutes  the  Hebrew  equivalent  D^S  STlto),  and  he  refers 
both  alike  to  the  same  writer. 

'■^  It  is  alleged  that  a  false  explanation  is  given  (ver.  48)  of  the  name 
"Gilead,"  which  means  hard  or  rough,  not  "heap  of  witness."  It  is 
not  necessary,  however,  to  suppose  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  sa- 
cred writer  to  affirm  that  Gilead  derived  its  name  from  the  transaction 
here  recorded.  It  bears  that  name  in  his  narrative  before  this  transac- 
tion took  place  (vs.  21,  23,  25).  His  meaning  rather  is  that  the  name 
which  it  had  long  borne  was  particularly  appropriate  by  reason  of  this 
new  association,  which  was  naturally  suggested  by  its  sound  to  a  He- 
brew ear  (of.  xxvii.  36). 


368  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

boundary  between  the  AramcTeans  and  the  Hebrews  may 
account  for  the  twofold  denomination.  "  Jehovah  watch 
between  me  and  thee  when  we  are  absent  one  from  an- 
other "  (ver.  49),  is  also  expunged ;  and  "  Mizpah,"  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse,  which  is  a  clear  voucher  for 
the  genuineness  of  the  doomed  clause,  and  a  name  which 
the  historian  was  at  pains  to  link  with  this  transaction, 
as  well  as  Gilead  and  Mahanaim  (xxxii.  3,  E.  V.,  ver.  2), 
is  by  a  stroke  of  the  pen  converted  into  Mazzebali,  and 
then  ejected  from  the  text.  "  No  man  is  with  us ;  see, 
Elohim  is  witness  betwixt  me  and  thee  "  (^ver.  50),  is  in 
like  manner  declared  to  be  an  insertion  by  the  redactor, 
on  the  ground  that  it  conflicts  with  ver.  48,  which  makes 
the  heap  the  witness  ;  but,  as  Delitzsch  observes,  there 
is  obviously  no  collision  between  these  statements. 
"  This  heap  "  with  its  adjuncts  is  twice  erased  (vs.  51, 
52a),  and  "  this  pillar  "  (ver.  52b),  so  as  to  read,  "  Be- 
hold, the  pillar,  which  I  have  set,  is  a  Avitness  betwixt 
me  and  thee,  that  I  will  not  pass  over  this  wall  (not  a 
heap  newly  cast  up,  but  a  boundary  of  long  standing)  to 
thee,  and  that  thou  shalt  not  pass  over  this  wall  unto 
me."  With  the  text  thus  cleared  of  obstructions,  and 
altered  to  suit  his  purpose,  he  has  a  comparatively  clear 
course. 

It  is  obvious  to  observe  further  that  the  two  covenant 
meals  are  a  fiction.  Upon  the  erection  of  the  heap  pre- 
liminary mention  is  made  (ver,  46)  of  the  feast  held  be- 
side it,  which  is  then  recorded  more  fully,  after  other  de- 
tails have  been  given,  in  ver.  54.  We  have  already  met 
repeated  examples  of  the  same  kind.  Delitzsch  refers 
to  such  parallels  as  xxvii.  23  ;  xxviii.  5.  Dillmaun  him- 
self said  (in  his  first  edition)  of  the  eating  together  in  ver. 
46  :  "  This  w^as  the  covenant  meal,  which  is  related  ver. 
54.  It  is  here  only  referred  to  proleptically  (as  ii.  8  and 
15  ;  xxiv.  29,  30),  and  it  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  as- 


RETURN    FROM   HARAN    (CHS.    XXXI. -XXXII.  3)      369 

sign  the  verse  to  a  different  author  from  vs.  53,  54,  espe- 
cially as  '  his  brethren  '  corresponds  with  vs.  32,  37." 

With  the  doublets  thus  disposed  of,  the  analysis, 
which  has  no  further  basis,  collapses  entirely.  The  carp- 
ing objection  that  acts  in  which  both  participated  are  (vs. 
45,  46)  attributed  to  Jacob,  and  (ver.  51),  claimed  by  La- 
ban,  gives  no  aid  nor  comfort  to  the  critics,  for  the  dis- 
crepancy, such  as  it  is,  is  between  contiguous  verses  of  the 
same  document.  Wellhausen  on  this  ground  eliminates 
"  Jacob  "  from  the  text  of  vs.  45,  46,  and  substitutes 
"  Laban."  Dillmann  (in  his  first  edition)  quoted  with  ap- 
proval Knobel's  statement,  "It  is  self-evident  that  all 
this  was  done  in  common  by  both  the  leaders  and  their 
adherents  ; "  and  again,  on  ver.  51,  "  Laban,  as  the  one 
who  proposed  the  covenant,  rightly  prescribes  to  Jacob  the 
words  to  be  sworn,  and  attributes  to  himself,  as  the  orig- 
inator of  it  (ver.  44),  the  erection  of  the  two  witnesses." 
The  suspicion  cast  upon  "  the  God  (or  gods)  of  their 
father  "(ver.  53),  because  the  verb  is  interposed  between 
it  and  "  the  God  of  Nahor,"  with  which  it  is  in  apposition, 
is  a  pure  question  of  textual  criticism  without  further 
consequences.  Here  again  Dillmann  comes  to  the  res- 
cue in  his  first  edition.  "  The  God  of  Abraham  and  the 
God  of  Nahor  are  then  both  designated  by  the  apposi- 
tion 'the  gods  of  their  father,'  as  once  worshipped  by 
Terah,  as  if  Terah's  two  sons  had  divided  in  the  worship 
of  the  gods  of  Terah." 

THE  DIVINE  NAMES 

The  divine  names  are  used  discriminatingly  through- 
out. It  was  Jehovah  (ver.  3)  who  bade  Jacob  return  to 
the  land  of  his  fathers  ;  but  in  repeating  this  to  his  wives, 
who  were  but  partially  reclaimed  from  idolatry  (xxx.  11 ; 
xxxi.  34  ;  xxxv.  2,  4),  he  constantly  uses  Elohim  (xxsi.  4- 
24 


370  THE  GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

13)  (once,  more  definitely,  the  God  of  my  father,  ver.  5), 
as  they  also  do  in  reply  (ver.  16).  In  like  manner  it  is 
Eloliim,  Avho  speaks  to  Laban  the  Aramaean  (ver.  24), 
and  of  whom  Jacob  speaks  to  Laban  (ver.  42),  though 
both  of  them  recognize  his  identity  with  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham and  of  Isaac  (vs.  29,  42).  When  they  covenant,  ap- 
peal is  made  both  to  Jehovah  and  to  Elohim  (vs.  49,  50) 
as  the  God  of  Abraham  and  the  God  of  Nahor  (ver.  53). 
Jacob  swears  by  the  Fear  of  his  father  Isaac  (ver.  53), 
the  Being  whom  his  father  reverently  worshipped,  and 
whose  gracious  care  he  had  himself  experienced  (ver.  42). 
In  xxxii.  2,  3  (E.  V.,  vs.  1,  2),  "  angels  of  Elohim,"  "  the 
host  of  Elohim,"  are  so  called  in  distinction  from  mes- 
sengers of  men  and  armies  under  human  command ;  it 
is  a  detachment  divinely  sent  to  welcome  and  escort 
him  as  he  returns  to  the  holy  land. 

MARKS  OF   P   (VER.    18) 

1.  ©DT  substance,  and  tJDl  to  gather.  See  ch.  xii.  5. 
Marks  of  P,  No.  2.  ' ' 

2.  I^pp  getting ;  besides  in  the  Hexateuch,  xxxiv.  23 ; 
Josh.  xiv.  4  P  ;  Lev.  xxii.  11,  which,  according  to  Well- 
hausen,  is  not  in  P ;  and  Gen.  xxxvi.  6,  which  is  cut  out 
of  a  disputed  context  and  given  to  P. 

3.  Paddan-aram.  See  ch.  xxv.  19-34,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  4. 

4.  ipi'2  yna?  land  of  Canaan.  See  ch.  xii.  5,  Marks  of 
P,  No.' 4. 

5.  The  diffuseness  ;  but  this  is  no  greater  than  in  vs. 
1,  3  J,  and  vs.  26,  27,  43  E.  See  ch.  xvii.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  5. 

MARKS   OF  E 

1.  The  back  reference  (ver.  13)  to  xxviii.  20  sqq.,  which 
is  readily  admitted. 


EETUKN^   FROM   HARAI^    (CHS.    XXXI. -XXXII.  3)      371 

2.  The  revelations  in  dreams  (vs.  10.  11,  24).  See  cli. 
XX.,  Marks  of  E,  No.  4. 

3.  Teraphim  (vs.  19, 34,  35) ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Hex- 
ateuch. 

4.  Lahan,  the  Aramcean.  See  ch.  xxv,  19-34,  Marks  of 
P,  No.  5. 

5.  nias  maid-servant  (ver.  33) ;  here  used  rather  than 
nnsilj  because  they  are  spoken  of  not  as  bondmaids,  but 
as  wives  of  Jacob.     See  ch.  xx.,  Marks  of  E,  No.  1. 

6.  anb  heart  (ver.  26).  See  ch.  xx.,  Marks  of  E, 
No.  2.  '" 

7.  nb  here  (ver.  37).  See  ch.  xxii.  1-19,  Marks  of  E, 
No.  5. 

8.  ^^B  met  (xxxii.  2,  E.  V.,  ver.  1).  See  ch.  xxviii.  10- 
22,  Maris  of  E,  No.  3. 

9.  'pn^'^  nns  the  Fear  of  Isaac  (xxxi.  42,  53);  nowhere 
else  ;  and  even  ^ns)  besides,  in  the  Hexateuch,  only  in 
Deut.  and  Ex.  xv.  16,  a  passage  supposed  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  an  older  document,  but  not  written  by  E. 

10.  n''jb  times  (xxxi.  7,  41) ;  nowhere  else. 

DillJbkJ  b^n  before  time  (xxxi.  2,  5),  is  reckoned  an  E 
phrase;  it  occurs  besides,  Ex.  v.  7,  8,  14  ;  xxi.  29,  36  E  ; 
but  also  Ex.  iv.  10  J ;  Josh.  xx.  5  P.  rtav  (ver.  28),  a  hke 
form  of  the  infinitive,  occurs  xlviii.  11  ;  1.  20  ;  Ex.  xviii, 
18  E  ;  but  also  Gen.  xxvi.  28 ;  Ex.  xxxii.  6  J.  mn 
search  (ver.  35)  ;  only  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  xliv.  12  J. 
"^21^3  ini  burn  in  the  eyes  of  be  displeasing  to  (ver.  35), 
besides  in  xlv.  5,  where  it  is  included  between  two  J  ex- 
pressions in  the  same  clause,  b  "in^l  teas  toroth  (ver. 
36),  as  iv.  5  J.  The  use  of  npb  by  E  (vs.  45,  46)  re- 
sembles what  Dillmann  affirms  to  be  characteristic  of 
P,  xii.  5,  and  elsewhere.  The  various  words  and 
phrases  alleged  as  marks  of  E,  in  this  section  as  else- 
where, are  for  the  most  part  either  limited  to  a  single 
passage,  or  are  also  found  in  J.     Consequently  they  do 


372  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

not  in  fact  supply  any  argument  for  a  document  E  dis- 
tinct from  J. 

It  may  further  be  noted  that  by  the  confession  of  the 
critics  the  same  writer  may  use  different  terms  to  express 
the  same  thought.  Thus  ver,  2  speaks  of  the  counte- 
nance of  Laban  being  ivith  Jacob,  but  ver.  5  of  its  be- 
ing toward  him ;  to  "  set  up  "  (a  pillar)  is,  in  ver.  45, 
Qi-in,  but  in  xxviii.  18,  22,  niTD,  and  in  xxxv.  20,  n^^n  ; 
and  "  collecting  stones  "  is  expressed  differently  in  suc- 
cessive clauses  of  ver.  46.  Yet  all  these  forms  of  ex- 
pression are  attributed  alike  to  E. 

MEETING   OF  JACOB   AND  ESAU   (CH.   XXXII.  4  ^ -XXXIII.    17) 

Hupfeld  is  commonly  acute  enough  in  detecting 
grounds  of  division,  but  here  for  once  he  is  completely 
at  fault.  This  entire  section  seemed  to  him  ^  to  bear  the 
most  conclusive  marks  of  unity  in  language,  in  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  narrative,  and  in  the  close  connection  of 
the  several  parts,  which  mutually  presuppose  and  are 
indispensable  to  each  other.  The  interchange  of  divine 
names,  Jehovah  (xxxii.  10)  and  Elohim,  gives  him  no 
trouble,  since  the  latter  occurs  only  where,  according  to 
general  Hebrew  usage,  "Jehovah  would  not  be  appro- 
priate "  (xxxii.  29,  31 ;  xxxiii.  10),  or  "  Elohim  is  prefer- 
able "  (xxxiii.  5,  11).  He  accordingly  attributed  the 
whole  of  this  section  to  J.  Schrader,  on  the  contrary, 
assigns  it  all  to  E,  with  the  exception  of  vs.  10-13  J,  and 
ver.  33,  about  which  he  is  in  doubt  whether  it  belongs  to 
J  or  is  a  later  gloss.     In  his  first  edition  Dillmann  re- 

'  The  last  verse  of  ch.  xxxi.  in  the  English  version  is  the  first  verse  of 
ch.  xxxii.  in  the  Hebrew,  and  the  consequent  difference  in  numeration  is 
continued  through  ch.  xxxii.  The  numbers  given  in  the  text  are  those 
of  the  Hebrew,  from  which  one  must  be  deducted  for  the  correspond- 
ing verse  in  the  English  Bible. 

"Quellen,  p.  45. 


JACOB    AND   ESAU    (CIIS.    XXXII.  4-XXXIII.   17)      873 

ferred  xxxii.  8  13  to  J,  and  ys.  23-32  to  E,  while  the 
remainder  (xxxii.  4-7,  14-22;  xxxiii.  1-16)  contained 
so  many  indications  of  both  E  and  J  that  he  felt  obliged 
to  assume  that  J  had  taken  the  substance  of  it  from  E, 
and  remodelled  it  after  his  own  fashion.  Such  mingled 
texts,  in  which  are  confusedly  blended  what  the  critics 
regard  as  the  characteristics  of  different  documents, 
simply  show  how  mistaken  is  every  attempt  to  apportion 
among  distinct  writers  expressions  which  are  thus  seen 
to  flow  freely  from  the  same  pen. 

Wellhausen  admits  that  this  whole  section  is  closely 
connected  throughout,  and  that  it  gives  the  impression 
of  having  been  drawn  from  but  a  single  source.  "  One 
will  surely  wonder,"  he  adds,  "  at  the  idle  acuteness 
which  nevertheless  succeeds  here  in  sundering  J  and  E." 
He  has  discovered  a  doublet,  wiiich  had  previously  es- 
caped all  eyes,  and  by  its  aid  he  undertakes  to  rend  the 
passage  in  twain.  Verse  14a  is  repeated  ver.  22b.  He 
infers  that  vs.  14b-22a  only  carries  the  narrative  to  the 
point  already  reached  by  vs.  4-13;  and  that  conse- 
quently these  two  paragraphs  are  not  consecutive  as 
they  appear  to  be,  and  as  the  nature  of  their  contents 
would  seem  to  imply,  but  are  parallel  accounts  of  the 
same  transaction,  drawn  respectively  from  J  and  E.  In 
his  first  edition  Dillmann  was  so  far  from  agreeing  with 
this  position  as  to  maintain  that  the  night  spoken  of  in 
ver.  22  is  not  the  same  as  that  in  ver.  14,  but  is  the  next 
ensuing.  In  subsequent  editions,  however,  he  follows, 
as  he  has  unfortunately  so  often  done,  in  the  wake  of 
Wellhausen,  as  though  the  latter  had  made  a  veritable 
discovery.  But  even  though  the  night  is  the  same,  the 
paragraphs,  which  these  verses  respectively  conclude,  are 
plainly  not  identical  in  their  contents,  nor  can  they  by 
possibility  be  variant  accounts  of  the  same  transaction. 
Jacob  had  taken  the  precaution  to  notify  Esau  of  his 


374  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

return,  and  was  informed  that  Esau  was  on  his  way  to 
meet  him  with  four  hundred  men  (vs.  4-7).  He  was  in 
consequence  greatly  alarmed,  not,  as  Tuch  imagined,  by 
the  vague  apprehension  of  what  a  horde  of  robber  Bed- 
ouins might  possibly  do.  This  notion  was  advocated 
by  him  in  the  interest  of  the  supplement  hypothesis, 
which  admitted  but  one  Elohist,  and  supposed  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  any  strife  between  the  brothers.  But  it 
is  quite  inadmissible  in  the  present  form  of  the  divisive 
hypothesis,  according  to  which  E  and  J  alike  record 
Jacob's  fraud  in  obtaining  his  father's  blessing,  and 
Esau's  murderous  wrath  in  consequence.  Jacob  well 
knew  that  he  had  an  enraged  brother  to  deal  with,  and 
he  feared  the  worst.  He  shaped  his  measures  accord- 
ingly. He  first  divides  his  flocks  and  herds,  together 
with  his  retinue,  into  two  separate  companies,  that  if  one 
should  be  attacked  the  other  might  escape  (vs.  8,  9). 
He  then  makes  his  earnest  appeal  to  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  his  fathers,  who  had  bidden  him  return,  acknowledg- 
ing his  unworthiness  of  past  mercies,  pleading  the 
promises  divinely  made  to  him,  and  praying  for  deliver- 
ance from  this  impending  peril  (vs.  10-13).  Upon  this 
he  selects  a  valuable  present  of  goats  and  sheep  and 
camels  and  asses,  and  sends  them  forward  in  successive 
droves  to  placate  Esau'  and  announce  his  own  coming 
(vs.  14-22).  These  are  evidently  distinct  measures, 
wisely  planned  to  avert  the  danger  which  he  had  so 
much  reason  to  apprehend. 

The  repeated  mention  of  the  night,  then  coming  on, 
Avliich  was  the  most  eventful  in  Jacob's  life,  upon  which 

'  The  assertion  that  tliere  are  two  variant  conceptions  of  the  present 
to  Esau,  that  in  ver.  14  E  it  is  simply  a  token  of  respect,  while  in  ver. 
21b  (which  Dillmann  cuts  out  of  its  connection  and  assigns  to  J)  it  is  de- 
signed to  appease  Esau's  auger,  is  at  variance  with  the  uniform  teuor  of 
the  entire  passage. 


JACOB   AND   ESAU    (CHS.   XXXII.  4-XXXIII.   17)      375 

SO  much  depeuded,  and  in  wliicli  so  mucli  was  done,  is 
by  no  means  surprising.     Preliminary  mention  is  made 
(ver.  14)  of  Jacob's  lodging  that  night  himself,  while  he 
sent  forward  the  present  to  his  brother,  which  is  then 
described  in  detail  with  the  accompanying  arrangements 
(vs.  14b-22a),     At  the  close  of  this  description  the  nar- 
rative, thus  interrupted,  is  once  more  resumed  by  repeat- 
ing the  statement  that  Jacob  "  lodged  that  night  in  the 
company"    (ver.    22b).     This   clause,  as  Dillmann  cor- 
rectly remarked   in   his  fii'st  edition,  is  a  "connecting 
Hnk"  with  the  following  account  of  what  further  took 
place  that  same  night,  which  was  so  momentous  a  crisis 
not  only  in  respect  to  the  peril  encountered,  but  as  the 
turning-point  in  the  spiritual  history  and  character  of 
Jacob.     The  repetition  of  this  clause  tends  in  no  way 
to  create  the  suspicion  that  the  narrative  is  a  composite 
one  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  proceeds  by  regular  and  closely 
related  steps,  every  one  of  which  has  a  direct  and  mani- 
fest bearing  upon  the  final  issue. 

An  additional  evidence  of  duplication  is  sought  in  the 
double  allusion  to  the  name  Mahanaim,  which,  we  are 
told,  E  and  J  understand  and  explain  differently.  Only 
it  is  unfortunate  for  the  effect  of  this  argument  that 
Wellhausen  and  Dilhuann  cannot  agree  how  E  did  un- 
derstand it.  They  are  clear,  however,  that  J  regarded  it 
as  a  dual,  and  meant  to  explain  it  by  the  "  two  com- 
panies," or  camps,  into  which  Jacob  divided  his  train  (vs. 
8,  9,  11)  ;  whereupon,  they  tell  us,  he  must  have  added, 
"Therefore  the  place  was  called  Mahanaim."  E  pru- 
dently omitted  this  statement  because  of  its  conflict  with 
ver.  3,  where  the  origin  of  the  name  is  accounted  for  in 
another  way.  But  such  a  mention  of  the  name  of  the 
place  by  J  is  thought  to  be  implied  in  ver.  14a,  "he 
lodged  there."  Undoubtedly  "  there  "  refers  to  a  place 
before  spoken  of,  either  one  actually  found  in  the  text 


376  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

(xxxii.  3  E,  tlie  wrong  document  for  the  critics),  or  one 
that  they  tell  us  ought  to  be  there,  though  it  is  not. 
About  E's  view  of  the  matter  there  is  not  the  same  agree- 
ment. Wellhausen  alleges  that  he  took  Mahanaim  for  a 
singular,  and  was  correct  in  so  doing,  aim  being  a  modi- 
fied form  of  the  local  ending  am,  and  hence  in  ver.  22 
he  writes  it  as  a  singular,  Mahane,  the  name  being  sug- 
gested by  his  meeting  a  host  of  angels.  Dillmann  re- 
gards it  as  a  dual  in  E  also,  suggested  by  the  two  com- 
panies or  camps,  that  of  the  angels  and  that  of  Jacob. 
But  however  this  question  may  be  settled,  different  al- 
lusions to  the  signification  of  the  name  Mahanaim  in  the 
same  connection  are  not  an  indication  of  distinct  writers, 
as  we  have  already  seen  repeatedly  in  other  instances. 
It  is  further  said  that  ver.  22  speaks  of  Jacob's  com- 
pany as  a  unit ;  the  writer  knoAvs  nothing  of  its  division 
into  two  companies  as  in  vs.  8,  9.  But  in  precisely 
the  same  way  Esau  speaks  (xxxiii.  8)  of  the  five  suc- 
cessive droves  which  he  had  met,  being  the  present 
which  Jacob  designed  for  him  (xxxii.  14-17)  as  a  single 
company. 

Further,  according  to  the  division  of  the  critics,  E 
(ver.  18)  presupposes  the  coming  of  Esau  announced  in  J 
(ver.  7),  and  all  the  an-angements  made  in  E  imply  ap- 
prehensions which  are  only  stated  in  J  (vs.  8,  9).  They 
are  in  fact  so  interwoven  that  they  cannot  be  separated. 
And  Dillmann  finds  it  necessary  to  assume  that  vs.  4-7 
are  preliminary  alike  to  E  and  J,  though  his  only  ground 
for  suspecting  their  composite  character  is  the  twofold 
designation  of  the  region  (ver.  4)  as  "  the  land  of  Seir, 
the  field  of  Edom."  Certainly  no  one  but  a  critic  intent 
on  doublets  could  have  suspected  one  here.  Mount  Seir 
had  been  spoken  of  (xiv.  6)  as  the  country  of  the  Horites. 
Esau  had  now  taken  up  his  quarters,  provisionally  at 
least  in  what  was  to  be  his  future  abode  and  that  of  his 


JACOB   AND   ESAU    (CHS.    XXXII.  4-XXXIII.    17)      377 

descendants.     This  is  here  intimated  by  calling  Seir  by 
anticipation  "  the  field  of  Edom." 

But  Dillmann  has  found  another  doublet,  which  even 
Wellhausen  had  failed  to  see  ;  ver.  23  is  J's,  and  ver.  24 
E's  account  of  crossing  the  Jabbok.  In  the  former 
Jacob  crosses  with  his  family ;  in  the  latter  he  sends  his 
family  before  him  and  himself  remains  behind.  And 
this  is  paraded  as  a  variance,  requiring  two  distinct 
writers.  Is  it  not  as  plain  as  day  that  ver.  23  is  a  gen- 
eral statement  of  the  fact  that  they  all  alike  crossed  the 
stream,  while  in  ver.  24  it  is  stated  more  particularly 
that  he  first  sent  over  his  family,  and  then  his  goods,  and 
that  a  very  remarkable  incident  occurred  to  himself  after 
he  was  thus  left  alone  ?  Dillmann  himself  so  explained 
it  in  his  first  edition,  his  only  doubt  being  whether  Jacob 
crossed  with  the  rest  to  the  south  bank  of  the  Jabbok, 
and  was  there  left  behind  while  they  moved  on,  or 
whether  he  continued  for  a  while  on  the  north  bank 
after  all  had  been  sent  over.  The  latter  is  the  common 
opinion,  though  the  former  might  be  consistent  with  the 
language  used.  As  Penuel  has  not  been  identified,  it 
may  be  uncertain  on  which  side  of  the  stream  the  mys- 
terious conflict  described  in  the  following  verses  took 
place. 

Jacob's  wrestling  with  the  angel 

Here  again  the  critics  diverge.  Are  vs.  24-33  by  J,  the 
author  of  xxxii.  4-14a  and  xxxiii.  1-17?  or  by  E,  the 
author  of  xxxii.  14b-22  ?  "Wellhausen  says  J  most  de- 
cidedly ;  Kuenen  and  Driver  agree  with  him  ;  Dillmann 
says  E  with  equal  positiveness.  Other  critics  follow 
their  liking  one  way  or  the  other.  There  is  a  conflict  of 
criteria.  The  literary  tests  point  one  way,  the  matter  of 
the  passage  the  other.  Thus  Wellhausen  :  "  The  whole 
character  of  the  narrative  points  to  J.     E,  who  has  God 


378  THE   GENEEATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

appear  in  dreams,  and  call  from  heaven,  and  then,  too, 
sometimes  introduces  the  angel  or  angels  as  a  medium, 
cannot  have  related  such  a  corporeal  theophany  ;  on  the 
other  hand  we  are  reminded  of  xv.  17  seq.,  and  of  ch.  xviii,, 
xix.  J."  Kuenen  ("  Hexateuch,"  p.  250)  claims  on  the  same 
ground  that  "  it  falls  in  far  better  with  J's  than  with  E's 
tone  of  thought."  Dillmann  points  to  Elohim  (vs.  29, 
31)  as  decisive  for  E,  and  claims  that  "  Wellhausen's  op- 
posing grounds  prove  nothing  or  rest  on  bare  postu- 
lates." Delitzsch  says,  "  The  name  Elohim  is  by  itself 
alone  no  decisive  criterion  against  J,"  thus  dislodging 
the  very  foundation-stone  of  the  divisive  hypothesis,  and 
adds,  "The  answer  to  the  question  whether  J  or  E  is  the 
narrator  remains  uncertain  and  purely  subjective." 

The  readiness  with  which  the  critics  can  upon  occa- 
sion set  aside  their  own  tests,  whether  derived  from  the 
matter  or  the  literary  form,  tends  to  confirm  the  belief 
that  they  are  of  a  precarious  nature  generally,  and  that 
the  verdict  of  Delitzsch  as  to  the  subjective  character  of 
critical  conclusions  is  applicable  to  other  instances  be- 
sides the  present.  Dr.  Harper  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage in  relation  to  this  and  the  preceding  chapters  :  * 
"  The  individual  variations  of  critics,  toucliing  this  sec- 
tion (xxviii.  10-xxxiii.  17),  many  and  arbitrary  as  they 
may  be,  are  due  to  special  considerations.  They  are 
unanimous  as  to  the  existence  of  an  analysis.  This  sec- 
tion, it  is  universally  admitted,  is  very  unsatisfactory ; 
the  duplicates  and  differences  relate  whollj'  to  details, 
not  to  general  narratives,  while  the  omissions  are  many 
and  important.  If  it  were  necessary  to  rely  AvhoUy  on 
this  section,  no  critic  would  claim  an  analysis."  All  crit- 
ical differences  are  thus  sunk  in  one  grand  consensus. 
"They  are  unanimous  as  to  the  existence  of  an  analysis," 
whether  they  can  agree  upon  any  particular  analysis  or 

'Hebraica,  V.  iv.,  p.  284. 


JACOB   AXD    ESAU   (CHS.   XXXII.  4-XXXIII.    17)      379 

not.  And  we  have  had  abundant  exemplificatiou  of  the 
fact  that  where  there  is  a  determination  to  effect  the 
partition  of  a  passage,  notwithstanding  the  clearest  evi- 
dences of  its  unity,  it  can  always  be  done  with  reason  or 
without  it. 

In  his  first  edition  Dillmann  ventured  the  suggestion 
that  "  in  E  this  narrative  (of  Jacob's  wrestling  with  the 
angel)  did  not  necessarily  stand  in  any  intimate  connec- 
tion with  the  meeting  of  the  two  brothers ;  and  at  all 
events  its  peculiar  significance  as  preparatory  to  the 
meeting  with  Esau,  and  as  supplementary  to  the  prayer 
(vs.  10-13),  was  first  acquired  by  its  being  fitted  into  its 
present  place  by  E."  By  thus  isolating  the  passage  from 
the  connection,  from  which  its  whole  significance  is  de- 
rived, in  a  manner  better  suited  to  the  fragment  than 
the  document  hypothesis,  it  is  easy  to  pervert  its  whole 
meaning  and  character,  as  though  it  stood  on  a  level 
with  the  stories  of  heathen  mythology,  just  as  the  same 
thing  is  done  with  vi.  1-4,  by  sundering  it  from  all 
that  goes  before  and  that  comes  after.  In  subsequent 
editions  Dillmann  regards  the  wrestling  with  the  angel 
as  parallel  to  the  prayer  (vs.  10-13),  only  he  apportions 
them  to  different  documents,  and  thus  impairs  the  unity 
of  the  narrative. 

Jacob  has  hitherto  been  relying  upon  his  own  strength 
and  skill,  and  has  sought  success  by  artifices  of  his  own. 
He  is  now  taught  that  his  own  strength  is  of  no  avail  in 
wrestling  with  God.  Disabled  by  tlie  touch  of  his  di- 
vine antagonist  he  is  obliged  to  resort  to  importunate 
petition  for  the  blessing  which  he  craved,  and  Avhich  he 
could  not  do  without. 

The  verb  "abak,"  tvrestled  (vs.  25,  26),  which  occurs 
nowhere  else,  is  here  used  with  allusion  to  the  name  of 
the  stream,  Jabbok,  on  the  bank  of  which  it  occurred, 
without,  however,   implying   that  it  received  this  name 


380  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

from  this  occurrence.  The  double  allusion  to  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  name  Penuel  (xxxii.  31  ;  xxxiii.  10  ^)  is 
adduced  as  evidencing  two  distinct  documents,  which  it 
manifestly  does  not. 

NO  PROOF  OF  A  PARALLEL  NARRATIVE 

While  xxxiii.  1-17  is  referred  to  J,  Dillmann  seeks  to 
show  that  E  must  have  had  a  similar  account  by  point- 
ing out  what  he  considers  indications  of  fragments  from 
E,  which  have  been  inserted  by  R,  viz.,  Elohim,  which 
occurs  inconveniently  in  a  J  paragraph  (vs.  5,  11)  (but 
not  ver.  10,  where  he  says  Jehovah  could  not  be  used), 
the  repetition  (ver.  11)  of  the  request  (ver.  10)  that 
Esau  would  accept  the  present  offered  him  (which  sim- 
ply indicates  Jacob's  urgency),  and  ver,  4,  where  "  fell 
on  his  neck  "  follows  "  embraced  him,"  whereas  the  re- 
verse would  be  the  natural  order  (the  same  hypercritical 
argument  might  be  applied  to  Acts  v.  30,  "  whom  ye  slew 
and  hanged  on  a  tree  ").  It  can  scarcely  be  said  that 
such  proofs  are  of  even  the  slightest  weight. 

THE   DIVINE   NAMES 

The  divine  names  are  appropriately  used.  Jacob  ad- 
dresses his  pray er  to  Jehovah  (xxxii.  10).  Elohim  occui-s 
(xxxii.  29,  31  ;  xxxiii.  10)  because  of  the  contrast  with 
men,  expressed  or  im]:»lied,  and  xxxiii.  5,  11,  because  the 
reference  is  to  the  providential  benefits  of  the  Most 
High,  as  well  as  for  the  additional  reason  that  Esau  is 
addressed,  who  is  outside  of  the  line  of  the  covenant. 

'  The  absurdities  to  which  critical  partition,  aided  by  a  lively  imag- 
ination, can  lead  is  well  illustrated  by  Wellhauseu's  discovery,  based  on 
these  verses,  that  '•  the  God  in  J,  who  meets  Jacob  in  Penuel,  is  Esau  in 
E,"  an  identification  which  he  thinks  of  some  importance  in  the  his- 
tory of  religion,  as  adding  another  to  the  list  of  deities. 


JACOB   AND   ESAU    (CHS.    XXXII.  4-XXXIII.   17)      381 


MARKS  OF  J 

1.  The  back  reference  in  xxxii.  10  to  xxviii.  13 ;  xxxi. 
3 ;  and  in  ver.  13  to  xxviii.  14,  the  expressions  being  in 
part  conformed  to  xxii.  17  (of  which  by  the  hypothesis  J 
could  know  nothing),  xvi.  10.  This  is  not  only  readily 
conceded,  but  affirmed. 

2.  n)2ST  "ipn  TV€V  show  mercy  and  truth  (xxxii.  11). 
See  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  29,  ch.  xxiv.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  6. 

3.  nnSTO  bondmaid  (xxxii.  6),  where  this  is  the  only 
proper  word  ;  and  xxxiii.  1,  2,  6,  where  the  reference  is 
to  Zilpah  and  Bilhah,  and  either  nriDTlJ  or  n)255  would  be 
appropriate.  See  ch.  xxi.  1-21,  Marks  of  E,  No.  11,  ch, 
xxix.,  XXX.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  4. 

4.  nstip^  V^l  run  to  meet  (xxxiii.  4).  See  ch.  xxix.,  xxx., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  2. 

5.  n^n  divided  (xxxiii.  1  ;  xxxii.  8)  ;  nowhere  else  in 
J ;  it  occm-s  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  only,  Ex.  xxii.  35 
bis  E ;  Num.  xxxi.  27,  42  a  later  stratum  of  P. 

6.  ""T^V^  ^n  "^riNIti  i?:"Di5  if  noio  I  have  found,  favor 
in  the  sight  of  (xxxii.  6  ;  xxxiii.  8,  10).  See  ch.  xii.  10- 
20,  Marks  of  J,  No.  3  ;  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  10. 

No  words  or  expressions  are  claimed  for  E  in  this  sec- 
tion. Alleged  doublets  and  variant  conceptions  are  the 
only  indications  of  this  document  here  adduced,  and 
these  have  all  been  considered  above,  "ib'i  child,  which 
is  claimed  as  an  E  word  in  xxi.  1-21  (see  Marks  of  E, 
No.  6)  occui's  here,  xxxii.,  23  ;  xxxiii.  1,  2,  5,  6,  7,  13,  14, 
all  which  are  referred  to  J.  This  word  is  used  through- 
out this  narrative  because  the  children  were  quite  young, 
only  from  six  to  thirteen  years  of  age. 


382  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH   (CH.    XXXIII.    18-XXXIV.) 

This  passage  is  a  fresli  puzzle  for  the  critics,  which 
they  labor  to  resolve  in  various  ways,  and  hence  there  is 
no  little  divergence  among  them.  The  difficulty  here  is 
not  the  chronic  one  of  disentangling  J  and  E,  but  of  re- 
leasing P  from  the  meshes  in  which  it  is  involved.  It  is 
a  notable  refutation  of  the  common  assertion  that  what- 
ever difficulty  may  attend  the  separation  of  J  and  E,  it 
is  always  easy  to  distinguish  P  from  them  both.  And  it 
is  a  clear  illustration  of  the  fact  that,  wherever  part  of  a 
narrative  is  conceded  to  P  it  is  interlocked  with  the 
other  documents  as  closely  as  they  are  with  one  another. 
This  passage  is  so  linked  with  what  precedes  and  follows 
in  the  history,  there  are  so  many  references  to  other 
passages  in  it  and  from  other  passages  to  it,  it  is  so  allied 
by  forms  of  expression  and  ideas  contained  in  it  to  pas- 
sages elsewhere,  and  all  this  runs  counter  in  so  many 
ways  to  the  prepossessions  and  conclusions  of  the  critics, 
as  to  form  a  veritable  labyrinth  through  which  it  requires 
all  their  adroitness  to  thread  their  way. 

The  name  of  God  occurs  bl^t  once  in  the  entire  pas- 
sage (xxxiii.  20),  so  that  all  pretext  is  cut  off  for  division 
on  that  ground.  "  El-Elohe-Israel,"  the  Mighty  God,  the 
God  of  Israel,  to  whom  Jacob  dedicates  the  altar,  is  the 
distinctive  name  of  him  whom  he  adores.  The  God  of 
Abraham  and  of  Isaac  has  been  with  him,  and  kept  him, 
and  provided  for  him,  and  brought  him  back  to  the  land 
of  his  fathers  in  peace,  and  has  thus  shown  himself  to  be 
the  God  of  Jacob  (xxviii.  13,  15,  20,  21)  ;  or  adopting  the 
new  name,  indicative  of  the  changed  character  of  the 
patriarch  (xxxii.  29),  he  is  the  God  of  Israel. 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH    (CHS.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIV.)     383 


JACOBS   ARRIVAL   IN   SHECHEM 

Ch.  xxxiii.  18-20  comj)letes  an  iiuportant  stage  of  Ja- 
cob's journey,  begun  xxxi.  17,  and  continued  ch.  xxxv., 
Avliile  it  is  immediately  preliminary  to  the  incident  re- 
corded in  ch.  xxxiv.  The  simple  statements  contained 
in  these  verses,  naturally  as  they  belong  together,  give 
no  small  trouble  to  the  critics,  who  are  obliged  to  parcel 
them  among  the  different  documents. 

"  And  Jacob  came  in  peace  to  the  city  of  Shechem, 
which  is  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  when  he  came  from 
Paddan-aram  "  (ver.  18a),  is  given  to  P  because  of  the 
itahcized  expressions  ;  and  yet  it  explicitly  alludes  to 
Jacob's  vow  (xxviii.  21  E),  whose  condition  is  declared 
to  have  been  fulfilled,  and  hence  (xxxv.  1  E)  the  per- 
formance of  what  he  then  stipulated  is  demanded. 
There  is  no  escape  from  this  manifest  reference  in  one 
document  to  the  contents  of  another  but  by  striking  "  in 
peace  "  out  of  the  text.  Again,  P  here  records  the  ter- 
mination of  an  expedition  on  which  he  had  laid  great 
stress  at  Jacob's  setting  out  (xxviii.  1-5),  but  all  be- 
tween these  limits  is  almost  an  absolute  blank.  P  has 
not  said  one  w<()rd  to  indicate  whether  Jacob  had  accom- 
plished the  purpose  for  which  he  went  to  Paddan-aram. 
Still  further,  Jacob's  route,  it  is  said,  is  purposely  laid 
through  the  holy  places,  Shechem  and  Bethel  (xxxv.  6, 
15).  The  fact  is  just  the  reverse  of  what  is  alleged. 
The  hallowing  of  certain  localities  in  later  times  did  not 
give  rise  to  the  stories  of  their  having  been  visited  by 
patriarchs  and  being  the  scene  of  divine  manifestations. 
But  their  association  with  the  history  of  the  patriarchs 
imparted  a  sacredness,  which  led  to  their  selection  as 
places  of  idolatrous  worship.  Admitting,  however,  the 
explanation  of  the  critics,  why  should  P  and  J  (see  also 


384  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

xii.  6,  8),  who  belonged  to  Juclah,  be  concerned  to  put 
honor  on  the  schismatical  sanctuaries  of  northern  Is- 
rael ? 

"  Shechem,  which  is  in  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  "  the  rela- 
tive clause  is  not  a  needless  expletive,  due  to  P's  cus- 
tomary verbosity.  It  emphasizes  the  fact  that  Jacob  has 
now  at  length  reached  the  holy  land,  from  wdiich  he  had 
been  so  long  absent.  And  "  Luz,  which  is  in  the  land  of 
Canaan  "  (xxxv.  6),  has  the  same  significance  ;  the  im- 
plied contrast  is  not  with  another  Luz,  but  with  another 
land  in  which  Jacob  had  been  ever  since  he  was  at  Luz 
before. 

Yerse  19  is  repeated  in  Josh.  xxiv.  32,  which  records  the 
burial  of  the  bones  of  Joseph  in  the  plot  of  ground  here 
purchased,  and  by  critical  rules  is  assigned  to  E,  who  as 
a  North-Israelite  would  be  interested  in  this  event  as  P 
and  J  would  not.  Jacob's  ownership  of  land  near  She- 
chem is  confirmed  by  his  flocks  subsequently  feeding 
there  (xxxvii.  12  in  J,  who  thus  seems  to  be  aware  of  a 
fact  only  stated  in  E).  This  peaceable  purchase,  how- 
ever, is  alleged  by  Kuenen  and  others  to  be  at  variance 
with  the  violent  seizure  related  xxxiv.  25-27,  as  though 
this  were  a  conflicting  account  from  another  source  of  the 
way  in  which  Jacob  came  into  the  possession  of  property 
in  that  quarter.  And  yet  ver.  19  is  plainly  preparatory 
for  ch.  xxxiv.  Hamor  is  called  "  Shechem's  father  "  for 
no  other  reason  than  to  introduce  the  reader  to  the  prom- 
inent actor  in  the  narrative  that  follows  (xxxiv.  2) ;  this 
can  only  be  evaded  by  pronouncing  "  Shechem's  father  " 
a  spurious  addition  by  R.  E,  too  (xhaii.  22),  refers  to  a 
conquest  by  force  of  arms,  which  must  have  been  addi- 
tional to  the  purchase  ;  a  conclusion  which  Wellhausen 
seeks  to  escape  by  giving  ver.  19  to  J  (Judsean  though  he 
is),  and  ascribing  xxxiv.  27  not  to  J,  but  to  some  unknown 
source.     Jacob's  purchase  recalls  that  of  Abraham  (ch. 


THE   KAPE   OF    DINAH    (CHS.   XXXfTF.   18-XXXIV.)     385 

xxiii.  P),  aud  is  based  on  the  same  piinci}>le  of  acquiring 
a  permanent  aud  a  legal  right  to  a  property  in  the  holy 
laud.  There  is  certainly  as  good  reason  to  claim  that 
they  are  by  the  same  author  as  the  critics  are  able  to 
advance  in  many  instances  in  which  they  assume  iden- 
tity of  authorship  as  undoubted. 

"  El  -  Elohe  -  Israel  "  (ver.  20)  clearly  refers  back  to 
xxxii.  29,  the  change  of  the  patriarch's  name,  thus 
clinching  Dillmaun's  conclusion  that  the  wrestling  on 
the  banks  of  the  Jabbok  must  on  critical  grounds  be  as- 
signed to  E,  whose  anthropomorphism  here  equals  that 
of  J.  But  this  name  (xxxiii.  20),  which  points  to  E,  is 
linked  with  the  erection  of  an  altar,  which  is  commonly 
distinctive  of  J  (xii.  7,  8,  etc.).  E  for  the  most  part  sets 
up  pillars  instead  (xxviii.  18  ;  xxxv.  1-1,  20).  The  text 
must  accordingly  be  adjusted  to  the  hypothesis.  The 
only  question  about  which  there  is  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion is,  shall  "  altar  "  be  erased  and  "  pillar  "  substituted  ? 
Or  shall  R  be  supposed  to  have  had  two  texts  before 
him,  "  built  an  altar "  (J),  and  "  set  up  a  pillar  "  (E), 
which  he  has  mixed  by  taking  the  verb  from  E  and  the 
noun  from  J. 

Dillmann  suspects  that  ver.  18b  is  from  J,  because  of 
"jrr^l  encamped,  which  occurs  but  once  besides  in  Genesis 
(xxvi.  17  J),  though  in  subsequent  books  repeatedly 
both  iu  P  and  E,  and  ^Sfi-nx  before  (xix.  13,  27  ;  Ex. 
xxxiv.  23,  24  J  ;  but  also  Lev.  iv.  6,  17  ;  x.  4  P  ;  and 
Gen.  xxvii.  30  ;  Ex.  x.  11  E).  If  J  relates  what  oc- 
curred at  Shechem  (ch.  xxxiv.),  it  is  certainly  to  be  ex- 
pected that  he  would  mention  Jacob's  arrival  there  ; 
hence  the  eagerness  of  the  critics  to  find  some  indica- 
tions of  J  in  these  verses.  So  that  P,  J,  E,  and  R  are 
all  represented  in  fragments  of  these  three  verses  ;  and 
one  scarcely  knows  which  to  admire  most,  the  ingenuity 
of  a  redactor  who  could  construct  a  continuous  narra- 
25 


386  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

tive  in  tliis  piecenjeal  fashion,  or  that  of  the  modern 
critic  who  can  unravel  such  a  tangled  web. 

CRITICAL   DIFFICULTIES 

The  stress  laid  upon  circumcision  in  ch.  xxxiv.  by  the 
sous  of  Jacob,  recalls  its  institution  in  the  family  of 
Abraham  (ch.  xvii.),  and  the  transactions  in  the  public 
meeting  of  citizens  resemble  those  in  ch.  xxiii.,  and  there 
is  a  striking -similarity  of  expressions  in  these  chapters  ; 
^•9-  '  "^t'P^^  Q?^  bi'an  every  male  of  you  he  circumcised 
(vs.  15,  22  ;  cf.  the  identical  expression,  xvii.  10,  12)  ; 
1Dpb|  every  male  (vs.  24,  25  ;  cf.  xvii.  23)  ;  'rO')'S  foreskin, 
uncircumcised  (ver.  14 ;  cf.  xvii.  11,  14,  23  sqq.)  ;  s'^TU: 
prince  (ver.  2  ;  cf.  xvii.  20  ;  xxiii.  6) ;  ^Tnsjn  get  you  pos- 
sessions (ver.  10) ;  cf.  n-TTiy;  j^ossession  (xvii.  8 ;  xxiii.  4,  9, 
20)  ;  nno  trade  (vs.  10,'  21),  cf.  "inb  trader  (xxiii.  16) ; 
il'iy  lyilj  '^X^'i"b|  all  that  icent  out  of  the  gate  of  his  city 
(ver.  24  bis),  cf.  'inty  n:^©  ''i53  bb  all  that  ivent  in  at  the 
gate  of  his  city  (xxiii.  10,  18)  ;  m'B'o  defile  (vs.  5,  13,  27)  is 
a  technical  term  of  the  ritual  law,  and  is  found  nowhere 
else  in  the  Pentateuch.  Knobel  adds,  as  characteristic 
of  P  from  the  critical  stand-point :  'f'"ixn  ni:a  daughters 
of  the  land  (ver.  1)  ;  "bs?  y^lC  hearken  unto  (vs.  17,  24)  ; 
l^pp  substance  ;  ri'ana  heast  (ver.  23).  Dillmann  further 
adds  ?fj?  only  (vs.  15,'  22,  23). 

All  this  points  to  P  as  the  author  of  the  chapter.  But 
according  to  the  current  critical  analysis  P  knows  noth- 
ing of  the  various  characters  here  introduced,  nor  of  the 
chain  of  events  with  which  this  narrative  is  concate- 
nated ;  and  in  fact  the  narrative  itself  is  altogether  out  of 
harmony  with  the  spirit  and  tone  of  this  document  as 
the  critics  conceive  it.  It  is  E  (xxx.  21)  that  records 
the  birth  of  Dinah,'  evidently  with  a  view  to  what  is 

'  Von  Bohlen  imagines  a  chronological  contradiction  between  xxx.  21 
and  cli.  xxxiv.     He  calculates  that  Dinali  could  be  "  scarcely  six  or 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH   (CHS.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIV.)     387 

here  related  of  her ;  just  as  xxix.  24,  29  is  preparatory 
for  XXX.  4,  9 ;  xxii.  23  for  xxiv.  15  sqq. ;  xix.  15  for  vs.  30 
sqq.  Otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  mentioned  (cf. 
xxxii.  23 ;  xxxvii.  35  ;  xlvi.  7).  It  is  J  and  E  that  tell 
of  the  sons  of  Jacob  (xxxiv.  7,  27 ;  cf.  xxix.  32  sqq.),  and 
particularly  of  Simeon  and  Levi,  own  brothers  of  Dinah 
(xxxiv.  25).  It  is  E  that  tells  of  the  change  of  Jacob's 
name  to  Israel  (xxxiv.  7  ;  cf.  xxxii.  29),  and  introduces 
the  reader  to  Shechem  and  his  father  Hamor  (xxxiv.  2  ; 
cf.  xxxiii.  19).  It  is  J  and  E  that  detail  the  various 
trials  with  which  the  life  of  Jacob  was  filled  in  one  con- 
tinuous series  from  the  time  of  the  fraud  w^hich  he  prac- 
tised upon  his  aged  father  and  his  brother  Esau,  viz.,  his 
compulsory  flight,  Laban's  deceiving  him  in  his  mar- 
riage, attempting  to  defraud  him  in  his  wages  and  pur- 
suing him  with  hostile  intent  on  his  way  to  Canaan,  his 
alarm  at  the  approach  of  Esau,  and  last  and  sorest  of  all, 
the  loss  of  his  favorite,  Joseph.  According  to  the  crit- 
ical partition,  P  makes  no  allusion  to  any  of  these  troub- 
les. They  are  all  of  one  tenor  and  evidently  belong  to- 
gether, and  this  disgrace  of  Jacob's  daughter  fits  into  its 
place  among  them.  And  we  are  told  that  it  is  alien  to 
P  to  record  anything  derogatory  to  any  of  the  patriarchs. 

seven  years  old"  at  the  time  referred  to  in  ch.  xxxiv.,  inasmuch  as  she 
was  Leah's  seventh  child,  Jacob  married  Leah  after  seven  years  of  ser- 
vice, and  he  remained  in  all  twenty  years  with  Laban.  But  he  over- 
looks the  fact  that  Jacob  had  meanwhile  resided  for  a  considerable 
time  both  at  Succoth  (xxxiii.  17),  where  "he  built  him  a  house,"  and  at 
Shechem,  where  (ver.  19)  "  he  bought  a  parcel  of  ground."  The  length 
of  his  stay  in  these  two  places  is  not  particularly  stated.  But  as  Joseph 
was  born  (xxx.  25)  when  Jacob  had  served  Laban  fourteen  years,  he  was 
six  years  old  when  they  left  Paddan-aram,  Eleven  years  consequently 
elapsed  between  the  departure  from  Paddan-aram  and  what  is  recorded 
in  ch.  xxxvii.  (see  ver.  2).  We  are  at  entire  liberty  to  assume  that  ten 
of  these  had  passed  before  ch.  xxxiv.,  in  which  case  Dinah  would  be 
sixteen  or  seventeen.     Her  youth  is  implied  ver.  4,  where  she  is  called 


388  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

There  are  subsequent  allusions  also  to  this  history  in  J 
(xlix.  5,  6)  and  in  E  (xxxv.  5 ;  xlviii.  22). 

DIVERGENCE   OF  THE   CRITICS 

Thus  this  chapter  is  strongly  bound  to  P  on  the  one 
hand,  and  to  J  and  E  on  the  other,  in  a  manner  that  is 
not  compatible  with  the  original  separateness  of  these 
so-called  documents.  The  early  critics,  Astruc  and 
Eichhorn,  accepted  the  unity  of  ch.  xxxiv,  without  ques- 
tion. Ilgen  did  the  same,  notwithstanding  his  disposi- 
tion to  splinter  whatever  seemed  capable  of  separation. 
Tuch,  w^ho  recognized  no  distinction  between  P  and  E, 
unhesitatingly  assigned  the  whole  of  the  chapter  to  P  ; 
so  did  Ewald,  Gramberg,  and  Stahelin.  Hupfeld,  un- 
able to  dispute  the  unity  of  the  chapter,  gave  it  in  the 
first  instance  to  E,  in  spite  of  its  admitted  relationship)  to 
P  ("Quellen,"  p.  46) ;  but  on  second  thought  he  assigned 
it  to  J  ("  Quellen,"  pp.  186  sqq.),  in  which  Kayser  and 
Schrader  follow  him.' 

On  the  ground  of  language  and  the  comparison  of 
xlix.  5-7,  from  which  the  inference  was  drawn  that  in  the 
original  form  of  the  story  Simeon  and  Levi  were  the 
only  actors  and  no  plunder  was  taken,  Knobel  supposed 
that  the  groundwork  of  the  story  was  by  P,  but  this  was 

>  In  how  serious  a  quandary  Hupfeld  found  himself  in  regard  to  the 
disposition  of  this  chapter  is  apparent  from  the  manner  of  his  argument 
in  reversing  his  former  decision.  He  says  that  the  grounds  for  refer- 
ring it  to  P  are  "  weighty  and  difficult  to  be  set  aside  ;  "  on  his  original 
assumption  that  xxxiii.  19  and  xxxv.  5  belong  to  E,  he  cannot  conclude 
otherwise  in  regard  to  ch.  xxxiv.  ;  nevertheless  xlix.  5-7  compels  him 
to  assign  it  to  J,  while  xlviii.  22  makes  it  necessary  to  maintain  that  E 
had  here  a  similar  narrative  which  R  has  not  preserved.  He  then  frees 
himself  from  the  embarrassment  created  by  xxxiii.  19  and  xxxv.  5  by 
transferring  these  verses  to  J.  In  a  note  he  offers  the  conjecture,  of 
which  others  have  since  availed  themselves,  that  vs.  27-29  may  be  au 
interpolation  or  inserted  from  another  source. 


THE   EAPE   OF   DINAH   (CHS.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIV.)     389 

supplemented  and  enlarged  by  J  with  matter  taken  from 
another  source.' 

Dillmann  made  a  different  partition  and  maintained 
that  the  want  of  agreement  and  coherence  between  the 
pai-ts  is  such  as  to  show  that  two  separate  narratives 
have   been  fused  together  by  a  redactor.     In  his  first 

'  The  different  critical  analyses  of  ch.  xxxiv. 

Knobel :  Grundschrift,  vs.  1-4,  6,  15-18,  20-26.  Kriegsbuch,  vs.  5, 
7-14,  19,  27-31. 

Dillmann  (1st)  :  P,  vs.  1,  2a,  4,  6,  8-10,  15-18a,  20-24  (25,  26  in 
part).     J,  vs.  2b,  3,  5,  7,  11-14,  18b,  19  (25,  26  in  part),  27-31. 

Dillmann  (3d)  :  P,  vs.  la,  2a,  4,  6,  8-10,  15,  (14)-17,  20-24.  J,  vs. 
2b,  3,  5,  7,  11-13  (14),  19,  25*,  26,  80,  31.     R,  vs.  27-29. 

Kittell  follows  Dillmann  (3d). 

Wellhausen  :  J,  vs.  3,  7*,  11,  12,  19,  25*,  26,  30,  31.  Unknown 
Source,  vs.  1*,  2*,  4-6,  8-10,  IS"",  14*   15-17,  20-24,  25*,  27-29. 

Oort :  Interpolation,  "  deceitfully,'"  ver.  13,  vs.  27,  28. 

Boelimer  :  J,  vs.  1*,  2*,  3,  4,  6,  8-12,  13*,  14-22,  24-26a,  28-30. 
R,  vs.  lb,  2b,  5,  7,  13*,  23,  26b,  27,  31. 

Delitzsch  :  P,  vs.  1,  2,  4,  6,  8-10,  14-18,  20-24.  J,  vs.  3,  5,  7,  11, 
12,  19,  25,  26,  30,  31.     E,  vs.  13,  27-29. 

Colenso  (Pentateuch,  Part  VII.  Appendix,  p.  149)  :  J,  vs.  1,  2a,  3a, 
4,  6,  7a,  8-13a,  14-24.     D,  vs.  2b,  3b,  5,  7b,  13b,  25-31. 

Driver  :  J,  vs.  2b,  3,  5,  7,  11,  12,  19,  25*,  26,  30,  31.  P,  vs.  1,  2a, 
4,  6,  8-10,  13-18,  20-24,  25*,  27-29. 

Dr.  Driver,  while  confessing  that  "the  analysis  is  not  throughout 
equally  certain,"  adopts  substantially  Wellhausen's  division.  Only  (1) 
he  attributes  to  P,  on  the  ground  of  unmistakable  mai'ks  of  P's  style, 
what  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  positively  declare  could  not  be  his,  thus 
annulling  (as  he  has  frequent  occasion  besides  to  do  in  the  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch)  his  often-repeated  statement  that  P  is  clearly 
distinguishable  from  J,  and  even  his  more  carefully  guarded  assertion 
that  "  in  Genesis  as  regards  the  limits  of  P  there  is  practically  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion  among  critics." — Literature  of  Old  Testament,  p.  9. 
And  (2)  he  somewhat  inconsistently  transfers  ver.  5  to  J,  though  he 
thinks  it  to  be  at  variance  with  ver.  30  :  "In  ver.  30  Jacob  expresses 
dissatisfaction  at  what  his  sons  have  done,  while  from  ver.  5  it  would 
be  inferred  that  they  had  merely  given  effect  to  their  father's  resent- 
ment." If  this  discrepancy  is  no  bar  to  the  reference  of  vs.  5  and  30 
to  the  same  document,  why  should  the  other  discrepancies  "  inferred" 
by  the  critics,  but  which  are  also  purely  imaginary,  hinder  our  belief  in 
the  common  authorship  of  the  entire  chapter  ? 


390  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

edition  he  held  that,  according  to  the  earHer  form  of  the 
story  given  by  P,  Shechem,  a  native  prince,  asks  the 
hand  of  Dinah  in  marriage,  whereupon  Jacob  and  his 
sons  promise  to  consent  to  intermarriages  between  them- 
selves and  the  Shechemites  on  condition  of  the  circum- 
cision of  the  latter.  And  the  house  of  Jacob  was  on  the  • 
point  of  affiliating  with  the  citizens  of  Shechem  when 
Simeon  and  Levi,  whose  zeal  was  aroused  for  the  puritv 
of  their  race  and  to  prevent  its  contamination  by  inter- 
mingling with  Gentiles,  frustrated  the  plan  by  assault- 
ing the  city  and  putting  Shechem  and  his  father  to 
death.  In  a  later  form  of  the  story  given  by  J,  Jacob's 
sons  were  angered  not  at  the  prospect  of  their  sister's 
marriage  with  a  foreigner,  but  at  her  actual  dishonor. 
They  propose  the  circumcision  of  the  Shechemites,  not 
sincerely  as  in  P,  but  craftily,  with  the  design  of  aveng- 
ing their  sister's  betrayal.  And  the  credit  of  punishing 
the  crime  of  Shechem  is  assigned,  not  to  Simeon  and 
Levi  alone,  but  to  all  the  sons  of  Jacob. 

In  later  editions  Dillmann  modifies  his  view  materi- 
ally by  rejecting  vs.  27-29  as  a  later  interpolation,  and 
transferring  vs.  25,  26  from  P  to  J,  thus  no  longer  mak- 
ing P  prior  to  J,  and  relieving  P  from  recording  a  vari- 
ance in  the  patriarchal  family.  P's  account  is  then  sim- 
ply concerned  with  the  legal  question  as  to  the  proper 
procedure  in  giving  a  daughter  in  marriage  to  a  foreigner. 
The  answer  given  is,  that  in  order  to  intermarriage  with 
the  Shechemites  they  must  first  be  circumcised.  To  this 
they  assent  in  the  persuasion  that  the  advantage  will  be 
greatly  on  their  side,  and  that  the  house  of  Jacob,  losing 
its  distinctive  character,  will  become  a  part  of  themselves 
(vs.  21-24).  Here  the  narrative  breaks  ofi"  unfinished 
without  disclosing  the  final  issue.  If  P  approved  of  this 
arrangement  he  must,  as  Kuenen  ^  argues,  "  have  been 
'  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen,  p.  263. 


THE   KAPE   OF   DINAH    (CHS.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIY.)      391 

more  of  a  Hamorite  than  an  Israelite,  or  at  least  neutral 
in  respect  to  the  two  clans."  And  he  positively  refuses 
"  to  admit  the  existence  of  such  a  species  until  another 
specimen  of  it  is  discovered."  J's  account  on  this 
scheme  is  that  the  most  honored  man  in  Shechem  (ver. 
19)  can-ied  off  Dinah  and  dishonored  her.  But  as  his 
love  to  her  grew,  he  desii"ed  her  in  marriage  from  Jacob 
and  his  sons,  and  offers  any  compensation  in  the  way  of 
bridal  gift.  The  brothers,  exasperated  at  the  disgrace  of 
their  sister,  deceitfully  make  the  condition  the  circumci- 
sion of  Shechem  (whether  that  of  the  other  citizens  of 
the  place  also  is  uncertain),  and  when  he  is  disabled  by 
the  resulting  sickness,  Simeon  and  Levi  kill  him  and  re- 
cover their  sister.  Jacob  blames  them  severely  for  hav- 
ing placed  him  and  his  family  in  peril  by  their  rash 
deed.  The  redactor  is  responsible  for  confusing  the  ac- 
counts to  some  extent,  and  especially  for  inserting  the  cir- 
cumcision and  massacre  of  the  Shechemites  in  J's  ac- 
count in  ver.  25  ;  and  he  betrays  his  later  stand-point  by 
the  strong  expression,  "  defile  their  sister  "  (vs.  27,  13b, 
5  ;  see  also  ver.  14b). 

Wellhausen  makes  a  different  disposition  of  several 
verses  and  brings  out  quite  a  different  result.  He  takes 
his  point  of  departure  from  an  alleged  discrepancy  be- 
tween vs.  26  and  27.  In  vs.  25,  26,  and  again  ver.  30,  the 
deed  is  imputed  to  Simeon  and  Levi,  but  in  ver.  27  to 
the  sons  of  Jacob,  i.e.,  the  children  of  Israel.  One  ac- 
count, J's,  represented  in  the  former  of  these  passages, 
but  only  preserved  in  a  fragmentary  way,  makes  of  it  a 
family  affair.  Simeon  and  Levi  avenge  the  wrong  done 
their  sister  by  entering  Hamor's  house  and  killing 
Shechem,  when  he  was  off  his  guard,  to  the  great  offence 
of  Jacob.  There  was  no  circumcision  in  the  case. 
Shechem  had  offered  any  dowry,  however  large,  in  order 
to  obtain  Dinah  in  marriasfe.     We  have  no  means  of 


392  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

knowing  how  much  was  demanded  ;  but,  whatever  it  was, 
Shechem  had  promptly  paid  it.  The  other,  which  is  the 
principal  account,  deals  with  international  relations,  out 
of  which  perhaps  the  story  grew.  It  cannot  therefore 
belong  to  either  P  or  E,  but  is  of  unknown  origin.  It  is 
an  affair  between  the  Bne  Israel  and  the  Bne  Hamor, 
whose  capital  was  Shechem.  The  latter  submitted  to 
circumcision  with  a  view  to  a  friendly  alliance,  and  when 
disabled  in  consequence  were  treacherously  massacred. 
Thougli  E  is  excluded  from  this  chapter  by  AVellhausen, 
the  evident  allusions  to  this  history  in  E  oblige  him  to 
confess  that  he  must  have  had  a  similar  narrative  in  this 
place  as  the  motive  for  Jacob's  removal  from  Shechem 
(see  XXXV.  5).  It  is  also  unfortunate  for  his  analysis  that 
ver.  25  has  to  be  reconstructed ;  for  in  its  present  form 
it  implies  the  circumcision  and  afiirms  the  assault  upon 
the  city  and  the  massacre  of  its  citizens,  showing  that 
Simeon  and  Levi  had  assistance.  And  this  is  confirmed 
by  ver.  30,  where  Jacob  apprehends  reprisals,  not  from 
the  Shechemites,  but  from  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
generally,  and  also  by  xlix.  5,  6,  which  speaks  of  vio- 
lence done  to  oxen  as  well  as  men. 

Oort  ^  held  that  this  chapter  (freed  from  the  interpola- 
tions vs.  27,  28,  and  "  deceitfully,"  ver.  13)  dates  from 
the  period  of  the  judges,  and  is  explanatory  of  the  situa- 
tion described  in  Judg.  ix.  (see  ver.  28.)^     "  In  the  form  of 

'  Oort's  Bible  for  Learners,  English  Translation,  vol.  i. ,  p.  398. 

'  This  passage,  bv  which  Oort  seeks  to  discredit  the  narrative  in 
Gen.  xxxiv.,  is.  on  the  contrary,  urged  by  Haveruick  in  confirmation  of 
its  historical  accuracy.  Gaal's  appeal  to  the  Shechemites,  to  "  serve 
the  men  of  Hamor,  the  father  of  Shechem,'  implies  that  the  descend- 
ants of  Hamor  were  the  prominent  ruling  family  of  the  place.  The 
title,  "father  of  the  city  of  Shechem,''  suggests  that  Hamor  was  its 
founder,  naming  it  after  his  son  When  Abram  passed  through  the 
place  (Gen.  xii.  6)  there  is  no  intimation  that  there  was  as  yet  any 
city.     This  is  first  mentioned  in  the  time  of  Jacob  ;  and  its  recent 


THE    UAPE    OF   DINAH    (CHS.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIV.)     393 

a  family  history  of  the  patriarchal  period  the  narrator 
has  here  given  us  a  fragment  of  the  history  of  the  Israel- 
ite people,  or  at  any  rate  of  some  of  the  tribes.  .  .  . 
The  legend  deals  with  one  of  the  burning  questions  of 
the  period  of  the  Judges — the  question  whether  Israelites 
and  Canaanites  might  intermarry.  The  practice  was 
very  advantageous  to  both  parties,  and  especially  to  the 
conquered  race ;  but  to  the  Israelite  of  pure  blood,  who 
looked  down  with  contempt  upon  the  old  inhabitants  of 
the  place,  it  was  an  abomination.  The  Canaanites  are 
represented  in  the  legend  under  the  person  of  Shechem, 
the  son  of  Hamor,  which  shows  that  this  question  was 
debated  in  the  city  of  Shechem,  where  the  Hamorites,  a 
Hivite  tribe,  were  settled.  This  fact  enables  us  to  bring 
the  legend  into  connection  with  the  history  of  Abimelech, 
and  to  find  the  counterparts  of  the  zealots,  Simeon  and 
Levi,  in  Gaal  and  his  brothers." 

Kuenen,  in  his  "  Religion  of  Israel,"  i.,  pp.  311,  409, 
accepted  this  view  of  Oort,  though  differing  from  him  as 
to  the  date  and  analysis  of  the  chapter  and  its  sjoecific 
reference  to  the  particular  occasion  spoken  of  in  Judg. 
ix.  Nevertheless  he  "  fully  assented  to  Oort's  main  idea," 
that  Gen.  xxxiv.  "  gives  us  historical  reminiscences  from 
the  period  of  the  Judges  in  the  form  of  a  narrative  about 
the  patriarchal  age."  "  Shechem  and  his  father  Hamor 
represent  in  this  narrative  the  Canaanites,  who  are  in- 
clined to  intermarry  with  Israel,  and  who  submit  to  the 
conditions  attached  to  this  step.  Simeon  and  Levi  con- 
sider such  a  contract  an  abomination  and  feign  satisfac- 
tion with  it  only  to  hinder  it  the  more  effectually.  This 
narrative  already  discloses  the  idea  that  the  violent 
measures  to  which  the  adherents  of  the  strictly  national 
tendency  were  obliged  to  resort  in  order  to  attain  their 

origin  and  consequent  insignificance  accounts  for  the  successful  attack 
upon  it  by  Simeon  and  Levi  and  their  adherents. 


394  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

purpose,  were  looked  upon  by  many  as  questionable  and 
dangerous"  (ver.  30). 

In  an  article  ^  published  in  1880,  Kuenen  accepts  tbe 
analysis  of  Wellhausen,  and  agi'ees  with  him  that  in  J's 
account  Jacob  and  his  sons  impose  a  heavy  money  for- 
feit upon  Sliechem  and  assent  to  his  marriage  with  Di- 
nah, which  would  have  taken  place  if  Simeon  and  Levi, 
less  yielding  than  the  rest,  had  not  interfered  and  killed 
Shechem.  He  diiiers  from  Wellhausen  in  regard  to  the 
rest  of  the  chapter,  which  in  his  esteem  is  not  a  sepa- 
rate account,  that  once  existed  by  itself  and  was  subse- 
quently combined  with  that  of  J  by  a  redactor.  J's 
account  was  distasteful  to  post-exilic  readers,  and  was 
in  consequence  remodelled  into  the  form  in  which  we 
possess  it  now.  The  Philistines  are  the  only  ones 
spoken  of  in  pre-exilic  writings  as  uncircumcised,-  and 
they  did  not  belong  to  the  original  iuhabitants  of  Ca- 
naan. The  idea  that  the  Bne  Hamor,  or  any  other  Ca- 
naanitish  tribe,  were  distinguished  from  the  family  of  Ja- 
cob by  being  uncircumcised,  and  that  they  must  be  cir- 
cumcised prior  to  intermarriage  with  them,  could  not 
have  arisen  before  the  exile.  The  deed  of  Shechem  is 
judged  with  such  extreme  severity,  and  no  punishment 
however  treacherous  and  cruel,  is  esteemed  too  great  be- 
cause he  had  "defiled"  Dinah  (vs.  5,  13,  27),  which  is 
much  worse  than  robbing  her  of  her  honor.  The  word 
conjures  up  that  frightful  phantom  of  post-exilic  Judaism, 
alliance  with  foreigners  (see  Ezra  ix.,  x).  Shechem's 
deed,  and  no  less  his  effort  to  make  it  good,  was  a  crime 
against  the  people  of  God  to  be  prevented  by  fire  and 
sword.  On  these  grounds  he  concludes  that  this  chapter 
has  been  remodelled,  not  indeed  by  P,  who  could  not 

'  Gssammelte  Abhandlungen,  pp.  255-276. 

'^  Judg.  xiv.  3  ;  xv.  18  ;  1  Sam.  xiv.  6  ;  xvii.  26,  36  ;  xxxi.  4  ;  2  Sam. 
i.  20. 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH    (CH.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIV.)     395 

depart  so  far  from  his  usage  as  to  introduce  this  tale  of 
treachery  and  phmder,  but  by  a  post-exilic  diaskeuast  of 
the  school  of  P,  who  has  borrowed  his  style  and  his 
ideas. 

All  this  reasoning,  as  Dillmann  suggests,  is  of  no  force 
to  those  who  do  not  accept  Kuenen's  assertion  that  cir- 
cumcision was  regarded  with  indifference  in  pre-exilic 
times.  In  fact  he  overturns  it  himself  in  his  "  Hexateuch," 
p.  326,  by  leaving  it  "  an  open  question  "  whether  J's  ac- 
count "  had  itself  represented  the  circumcision  of  She- 
chem  (not  of  all  the  citizens)  as  a  condition  laid  down 
in  good  faith  by  the  sons  of  Jacob." 

Merx  ^  follows  Boehmer  in  eliminating  from  the  narra- 
tive all  that  relates  to  the  dishonor  of  Dinah,  the  deceit 
of  her  brothers,  and  the  plunder  of  the  city  as  interpo- 
lations. What  is  left  is  regarded  as  the  original  story  as 
told  by  a  writer  in  North  Israel.  It  is  to  the  effect  that 
Shechem  asked  the  hand  of  Dinah  in  honorable  marriage, 
giving  the  required  dowry  and  submitting  likewise  to  the 
condition  of  being  circumcised,  together  with  his  people. 
But  Simeon  and  Levi  treacherously  fell  upon  them  in 
their  sickness  and  murdered  them,  to  Jacob's  great  alarm. 
The  rest  of  his  sons  did  not  participate  in  the  deed.  He 
thus  saves  the  honor  of  Dinah,  but  takes  away  all  motive 
for  the  conduct  of  Simeon  and  Levi.  The  design  of  the 
original  narrator  was  to  affix  a  stigma  upon  Simeon  and 
Levi,  as  these  tribes  adhered  to  the  southern  kingdom 
and  the  worship  of  Jerusalem.  The  interpolations  of  the 
Judaic  redactor  were  apologetic.  They  represent  Si- 
meon and  Levi  as  avenging  the  honor  of  their  house, 
while  the  other  tribes  are  also  involved  in  the  transaction 
and  are  solely  responsible  for  the  plunder  that  fol- 
lowed. 

In  his  first  edition  Delitzsch  assigned  the  entire  chap- 
»  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexicon,  Art.,  Dina. 


396  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

ter  to  P  ;  he  did  the  same  in  the  third  and  fourth  edi- 
tions, only  excepting  vs.  27-29  as  inserted  from  another 
source,  the  sons  of  Jacob  there  spoken  of  being  identical 
with  Simeon  and  Levi  of  ver.  25.  In  his  last  edition, 
however,  he  partitions  the  chapter  somewhat  differently 
from  his  predecessors,  and  finds  two  accounts  by  P  and 
by  J '  essentially  agreeing.  In  both  Dinah  is  seduced 
by  the  young  prince,  who  then  earnestly  desu-es  her  in 
marriage ;  the  circumcision  of  the  Shechemites  is  made 
the  condition  in  both;  in  both  Dinah  is  taken  off  and 
brought  back  again.  There  is,  besides,  a  brief  passage 
from  E,  recording  the  capture  and  sack  of  Shechem  sim- 
ply as  an  exploit  of  the  sons  of  Jacob. 

The  critics  have  thus  demonstrated  that  it  is  possi- 
ble to  sunder  this  chapter  into  parts,  each  of  which  taken 
separately  shall  yield  a  different  narrative ;  and  that  this 
can  be  done  very  variously,  and  with  the  most  remarka- 
ble divergence  in  the  results.  Now  which  are  we  to  be- 
lieve, Dillmaun,  Wellhausen,  Oort,  Kuenen,  Merx,  or  De- 
litzsch  ?  They  each  profess  to  give  us  the  original  form 
or  forms  of  the  story,  and  no  two  agree.  Is  it  not  appar- 
ent that  the  critical  process  of  each  is  purely  subjective? 
The  critic  makes  out  of  the  narrative  just  what  he  pleases, 
selecting  such  portions  as  suit  him  and  discarding  the 
rest.  The  result  is  a  mere  speculative  fancy,  Mdthout 
the  slightest  historical  value.     Delitzsch  correctly  says, 

'  In  defending  his  analysis  Delitzsch  remarks  that  ^53  =  fliy!:.  in  each 
of  the  twenty-one  times  in  which  it  occurs,  belongs  to  J  or  D.  To  note 
this  as  characteristic  of  a  particular  writer  is  to  affirm  that  it  belonged 
to  the  text  as  originally  written.  This  is  equivalent,  therefore,  to  a  re- 
traction of  his  opinion  expressed  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift  for  1880,  Art. 
No.  8,  that  the  use  of  this  word  as  a  feminine  as  well  as  j^TH  =  K^n  is 
traceable  to  the  manipulation  of  the  text  by  later  diaskeuasts,  instead 
of  being,  as  it  has  commonly  been  regarded,  an  archaic  form  properly 
belonging  to  the  original  text  of  the  passages  iu  which  it  occurs  and 
characteristic  of  the  Pentateuch. 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH    (CH.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIV.)      397 

"  Evidence  and  agreement  are  liere  scarcely  attainable." 
And  what  is  so  obvious  here  in  this  discord  of  the  crit- 
ics attaches  equally  to  their  methods  and  results  where 
they  follow  in  each  other's  tracks.  The  text  is  decom- 
posed ad  libitum  into  fragments  of  documents,  and  emen- 
dations or  additions  by  various  editors  and  redactors. 
The  whole  thing  is  regulated  by  the  will  or  the  precon- 
ceived ideas  of  the  critic,  and  is  a  mere  subjective  crea- 
tion, with  only  basis  enough  in  the  literary  phenomena  to 
give  it  a  faint  savor  of  plausibility. 

The  abruptness  of  this  narrative  in  P,  who  has  made 
no  previous  mention  of  any  of  the  parties  concerned,  has 
already  been  referred  to.  Its  incompleteness,  as  made 
out  by  Dillmann,  is  suggested  by  the  question  to  which 
no  answer  can  be  given,  what  became  of  Dinah  ?  It  is 
insupposable  that  negotiations  of  such  a  character  should 
be  carried  on  to  the  extent  indicated  and  no  mention 
made  of  the  issue.  It  seems  that  Dinah  could  not  have 
married  Shechem  since  P  speaks  of  her  as  a  member  of 
Jacob's  family,  when  he  went  down  into  Egypt  (xlvi.  15). 
If  not,  why  not,  since  the  condition  on  which  it  was  de- 
pendent was  fulfilled  ?  Why  is  nothing  fmiher  heard  of 
this  circumcised  community  at  Shechem,  and  of  the  in- 
tercourse and  intermamages  here  anticipated  ?  Is  there 
any  explanation  of  this  silence,  except  that  given  in  the 
verses  which  Dillmann  has  so  carefully  exscinded,  and 
of  which  Kueneu  justly  says  ("  Hexateuch,"  p.  326),  "  I 
cannot  see  any  possibility  of  separating  these  verses  (27- 
29)  and  the  corresponding  expressions  in  vs.  5,  13  from 
P's  account." 

It  is  said  in  explanation  of  the  incompleteness  of  this 
story  in  P  that  it  has  a  legal  rather  than  a  historical  pur- 
pose. But  it  is  surely  very  inconsistent  in  P  to  enact 
such  a  law  as  is  here  supposed.  He  informs  us  that 
Esau's  marriage  with  Canaanites  was  a  great  grief  to  his 


398  THE  GENERATIONS    OF   ISAAC 

parents  (xxvi.  35  ;  xxviii.  8),  and  that  they  would  not 
consent  to  such  a  marriage  on  the  part  of  Jacob  (ixvii. 
4:6  ;  xxviii.  1,  6).  And  yet  here  he  is  supposed  by  Dill- 
mann  to  favor  a  general  regulation  for  intermarriage  with 
Canaanites  on  condition  of  their  being  circumcised.  J's 
estimate  of  the  Canaanites  and  of  the  peril  of  contam- 
ination from  alliances  with  them  agrees  with  P's  (xxiv. 
3  ;  xiii.  13  ;  xv.  16  ;  xviii.  20  seq. ;  ch.  xix. ;  cf.  ver.  29 
P).  Even  on  the  principles  of  the  critics  themselves  it 
cannot  be  imagined  that  P  here  sanctions  what  is  in  di- 
rect antagonism  to  the  positive  injunctions  of  every  code 
of  laws  in  the  Pentateuch,  viz. :  E,  Ex.  xxiii.  32,  33  ;  J, 
Ex.  xxxiv.  12,  15,  16  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  52,  55,  56 ;  Holiness 
Laws,  Lev.  xviii.  24,  25  ;  xx.  22,  23  ;  D,  Dent.  vii.  3  ;  as 
well  as  the  unanimous  voice  of  tradition  (Josh,  xxiii.  12, 
13 ;  Judg.  iii.  6 ;  1  Kin.  xi.  1,  4),  And  if  P  be  thought 
to  be  post-exilic,  it  would  be  more  inconceivable  still 
(Ezra  ix.,  x. ;  Neli.  x.  30).  And  if  he  formulated  such  a 
law,  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  honesty  or  the  loyalty 
of  R  in  perverting  it  to  its  opposite,  as  is  done  in  this 
nai-rative  ? 

NOT  COMPOSITE 

But  though  the  critics  differ  so  widely  in  their  parti- 
tion of  this  chapter,  and  though  each  partition  that  has 
been  proposed  is  unsatisfactory,  it  may  still  be  said  that 
there  are  positive  proofs  of  its  composite  character,  even 
though  it  has  not  yet  been  successfully  resolved  into  its 
proper  component  parts.  The  bare  recital  of  the  proofs 
offered  is,  however,  sufficient  to  show  how  inconclusive 
and  trivial  they  are. 

Thus  it  is  argued  that,  according  to  vs.  4,  G,  8,  Hamor 
conducted  the  negotiation  on  behalf  of  his  son,  whereas 
in  vs.  11,  12,  Sheehom  is  represented  as  himself  suing  for 
the  hand  of  Dinah.     Kuenen  here  admits  the  possibility 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH   (CH.  XXXIII.  18-XXXIV.)      399 

of  the  very  natural  explanation  that  "  Sliechem,  in  vs.  11, 
12,  undertakes  to  speak  after  his  father ;  his  love  for  Di- 
nah does  not  permit  him  to  be  silent ;  he  must  also  on 
his  own  part  further  apply  every  possible  pressure."  His 
objection  that  we  would  not  infer  from  vs.  4,  8,  that  She- 
chem  was  present  at  the  interview  is  of  no  force ;  for  his 
request  that  his  father  would  intercede  on  his  behalf,  and 
the  prominent  part  taken  by  Hamor  in  the  matter  are 
not  inconsistent  with  Shechem's  accompanying  him  on 
an  errand  in  w^hich  he  was  so  deeply  interested.  That 
Hamor  and  Shechem  were  together  at  the  interview  is 
distinctly  stated  (vs.  13,  18),  where  the  critics  are  obliged 
to  assume  that  R  has  mixed  the  two  accounts. 

It  is  said  that  in  ver.  6  P  the  conference  is  held  with 
Jacob,  but  in  ver.  11  J  with  Jacob  and  his  sons ;  which 
only  shows  that  the  entry  of  Jacob's  sons  (ver.  7)  cannot 
be  sundered  from  ver.  6,  as  is  done  by  the  critics.  "While 
Hamor  was  on  the  way  to  see  Jacob,  the  sons  of  the  lat- 
ter came  in  from  the  field,  so  that  they  were  all  together 
at  the  interview.  Accordingly  (ver.  8),  Hamor  communed 
with  them,  not  with  Mm,  as  if  he  spoke  to  Jacob  alone ; 
and  (ver.  14)  "  they  said  unto  them,"  not  he  unto  him ; 
and  "  our  sister,"  instead  of  "  my  daughter,"  as  if  Jacob 
was  the  sole  speaker.  As  this  does  not  correspond  with 
the  assumption  of  the  critics,  they  tell  us  that  E,  must 
have  altered  the  text  here  again. 

It  is  claimed  that  there  is  a  duplicate  account.  Ha- 
mor makes  his  application  (vs.  8-10),  receives  his  answer 
(vs.  15  (14) -17),  and  lays  this  (vs.  20-24)  before  a  meet- 
ing of  the  citizens  ;  again  (vs.  11, 12),  Shechem  makes  the 
application,  and  after  receiving  the  answer  at  once  sub- 
jects himself  (ver.  19)  to  the  condition  imposed.  But 
nothing  is  duplicated.  There  is  no  variant  account  and 
no  repetition.  All  proceeds  regularly.  Shechem  (ver. 
11)  seconds  his  father's  application  ;  the  answer  is  made 


400  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

to  them  both  (vs.  13-17),  and  pleases  both  (ver.  18). 
Shechem  is  eager  to  have  the  condition  fulfilled  without 
delay  (ver.  19),  and  he  and  his  father  at  once  bring  it  to 
the  attention  of  their  townsmen  (vs.  20-23),  who  consent 
and  comply  with  the  condition  (ver.  24). 

It  is  alleged  that  the  answer  in  vs.  13-17  is  made  to 
Hamor's  proposal  in  vs.  8-10  of  trade  and  intermarriage 
between  the  two  clans,  and  not  to  Shechem's  offer  (vs. 
11,  12)  of  a  large  dowry  in  return  for  the  hand  of  Dinah. 
But,  in  fact,  one  common  answer  is  given  to  both  pro- 
posals, each  of  which  is  distinctly  referred  to.  And  it  is 
perfectly  true  to  nature  that  Shechem  should  have  but 
one  thought,  his  love  for  Dinah,  while  his  father  pro- 
poses general  amicable  relations,  under  which  the  accept- 
ance of  his  son's  suit  would  follow  by  legitimate  conse- 
quence. 

It  is  charged  that  vs.  2b,  26b,  conflict  with  ver.  17b. 
According  to  the  former,  Shechem  had  carried  off  Dinah 
to  his  own  house,  from  whence  she  was  rescued  by  her 
brothers  ;  but,  according  to  the  latter,  she  was  in  the  pos- 
session of  Jacob's  family.  This  is  a  mistake.  Her 
brothers  declare  their  intention  (ver.  17)  to  take  her 
away  if  their  demand  was  not  complied  with  ;  to  take 
her,  that  is,  from  the  place  where  she  then  was,  wherever 
that  might  be.  The  verb  is  identical  with  that  in  ver. 
26,  where  they  took  her  out  of  Shechem's  house. 

"  After  vs.  2b,  3,  one  expects  the  father  to  be  asked  to 
apologize  to  Jacob  for  the  offence  committed ;  but  in- 
stead of  this  the  marriage  negotiations  are  introduced,  as 
though  all  were  still  intact  and  the  girl  was  with  her 
parents ;  not  a  word  is  said  of  what  had  taken  place." 
"What  reparation  could  be  made  but  marriage  ?  and  this 
is  the  thing  proposed. 

It  is  further  charged  as  an  inconsistency  that  the  deed 
of  violence  is  in  ver.  30  attributed  to  Simeon  and  Levi, 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH    (CH.  XXXIIl.   18-XXXIV.)      401 

as  VS.  25,  26,  not  to  the  sons  of  Jacob  generally,  as  vs. 
27-29.  Simeon  and  Levi  were  the  leaders  and  instiga- 
tors, and  as  such  were  chiefly  responsible.  The  massacre 
is  attributed  to  them  ;  to  the  others  only  a  particii^ation 
in  the  subsequent  plunder  of  the  city.  Why  Simeon 
and  Levi  in  particular  were  so  prominent  in  the  affair 
is  intimated  in  ver.  25,  where  they  are  spoken  of  as 
"  Dinah's  brothers."  As  sons  of  Leah  they  were  her 
own  brothers ;  and  next  to  Reuben,  whose  weak  and  vac- 
illating character  incapacitated  him  for  resolute  action, 
they  were  her  oldest  brothers,  to  whom  the  protection  of 
their  sister  and  the  redress  of  her  wrongs  naturally  de- 
volved (cf.  xxiv.  50,  55,  59).  Hence  Jacob,  after  hearing 
of  the  outrage  (ver.  5),  waits  for  the  return  of  his  sons 
before  any  steps  are  taken,  and  then  he  leaves  the  whole 
matter  in  their  hands.  The  treacherous  and  murderous 
scheme  concocted  and  executed  by  Simeon  and  Levi, 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  other  sons  (ver.  13),  was 
without  Jacob's  knowledge  and  privity,  and  incurred  his 
severe  reprobation  (xlix.  5-7). 

Knobel  remarks  that  in  xxxiv.  30  "  Jacob  blames  not 
the  immorality  of  the  action,  but  the  inconsiderateness  of 
his  sons,  which  has  plunged  him  into  trouble."  But  as 
Hengstenberg  ^  observes,  we  see  from  xxxv.  5  why  pre- 

'  Authentie  des  Pentateuclies,  ii.,  p.  535.  Hengstenberg  further 
points  to  the  fact  that  it  is  the  habit  of  the  sacred  historian  simply  to 
report  the  actions  of  the  patriarchs,  without  commenting  upon  tlieir 
moral  quality,  leaving  this  to  be  suggested  by  the  providential  retribu- 
tion which  followed  in  the  results  of  their  misdeeds.  No  censure  is 
formally  passed  upon  Abram's  connection  with  Hagar ;  but  the  unhap- 
piness  which  sprang  from  it  constrained  him  to  dismiss  her.  Jacob 
deceived  his  father  and  defrauded  his  brother,  and  was  in  his  turn  de- 
ceived and  defrauded  by  Laban  ;  twenty  years  of  toil  and  enforced 
absence  from  home,  and  his  alarm  at  meeting  Esau,  were  the  fruit  of 
that  act  of  sin.  Rebekah's  participation  in  the  fraud  was  punished  by 
lifelong  separation  from  her  favorite  son.  Reuben's  crime  is  simply 
related  (xxxv.  22) ;  judgment  upon  it  is  reserved  until  Jacob's  dying 
26 


402  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

cisely  these  words  of  Jacob  are  recorded  here.  Atten- 
tion is  drawn  to  the  peril  of  the  situation  in  order  to 
bring  to  view  the  divine  protection  which  warded  oflf  all 
dangerous  consequences. 

That  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  narrative  in  its 
present  form  is  substantially  admitted  by  Kuenen,  who 
finds  no  evidence  of  sej)arate  and  variant  documents,  but 
onl}'  that  the  chapter  has  been  remodelled  so  as  to  give 
it  a  different  complexion  from  that  which  it  originally 
had.  There  may  be  different  opinions  as  to  the  remod- 
elling, whether  it  was  the  work  of  ancient  diaskeuasts 
or  of  modem  critics;  but  we  can  at  least  agree  with 
Kuenen  that  the  text  tells  a  uniform  story  as  it  now 
stands. 

MARKS   OF  P 

1.  Diffuseness,  e.g.,  the  daughter  of  Leah,  which  she 
bore  unto  Jacob  (ver.  1).  In  what  respect  is  there  a 
greater  redundancy  here  than  in  the  almost  identical 
repetition  xxii,  20b,  23b  J  ? 

2.  iJiilJD  prince  {yer.  2),  See  ch,  xvii.,  Marks  of  P,  No. 
11. 

3.  pisn  to  long  for  (ver.  8) ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  except  in  Deuteronomy.  The  occurrence  of  py^ 
to  cleave  unto  (ver.  3),  as  an  equivalent  is  no  proof  of  a 
diversity  of  writers.  See  ch.  xxxi.-xxxii.  3,  Marks  of  E, 
at  the  end. 

4.  Tni?3  fo  get  possessions  (ver.  10)  ;  besides  in  P  (xlvii. 
27  ;  Num.  xxxii.  30  ;  Josh.  xxii.  9, 19)  ;  in  E  (Gen.  xxii. 
13)  in  a  different  sense. 

5.  ^iDT'bs  Dpb  biisn  every  male  of  you  he  circumcised 
(vs.  15,' 22),  as  xvii.  10,  12. 

6.  "iDT-bii  every  male  (ver.  24).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks 
of  P,  No.  12. 

words  in  respect  to  it  are  recorded  (xlix.  3,  4).     It  is  precisely  the  same 
with  the  deed  of  Simeon  and  Levi. 


THE   RAPE   OF   DINAH    (CH.  XXXtll.  18-XXXIV.)      403 

7.  b^  S)2t  hearken  unto  (vs.  17,  24).  See  ch.  xxiii., 
Marks  of  p/No.  10. 

8.  )^^'p  substance  (ver.  23).  See  cli.  xxxi.-xxxii.  3, 
Marksof  P,  No.  2. 

9.  ntina  beast  (ver.  23) ;  often  besides  in  P ;  but  also 
in  J  (ii.  20  ;  iii.  14  ;  vii.  2,  8 ;  viii.  20,  etc.).  It  is  associ- 
ated with  nipia  cattle  as  here,  also  in  P  (xxxvi.  6)  ;  in  a  so- 
called  secondary  stratum  in  P  (Num.  xxxi.  9) ;  in  J  (Gen. 
xlvii.  18 ;  Ex.  ix.  19  ;  Num.  xxxii.  26) ;  nowhere  else  in 
the  Hexateuch. 

10.  tfi5  only  (vs.  15,  23).  See  ch.  xxvi.  34-xxviii.  9, 
Marks  of  E,  No.  1. 

11.  -y^y  n?0  '^^^^''^'^  «^^  ^^^«^  f^ent  out  of  the  gate  of  the 
city  (ver.  24),  as  xxiii.  10,  18. 

MARKS   OF  J 

1.  pyi  to  cleave  unto  (ver.  3) ;  besides  in  J  (ii.  24  ;  xix. 
19) ;  in  E  (xxxi.  23) ;  in  P  (Num.  xxxvi.  7,  9) ;  in  D  (Josh, 
xxii.  5  ;  xxiii.  8,  12)  and  several  times  in  Deut. 

2.  n3?D  damsel  (vs.  3,  12),  young  man  (ver.  19)  ;  the  oc- 
currence of  rrnbl^  (ver.  4)  as  a  feminine  equivalent  is  no 
indication  of  a  difference  of  writers.  See  ch.  xxi.  1-21, 
Marks  of  E,  No.  6. 

3.  nsiynn  to  be  grieved  (ver.  7).  See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks' 
of  J,  No.  8.' 

4.  ib  nnn  to  be  ivroth  (ver.  7).  Seech,  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  30. 

5.  TW:?''^  iib  13  which  ought  not  to  be  done  (ver.  7)  ;  as- 
signed besides  to  J  (xxix.  26),  but  this  is  cut  out  of  an  E 
connection;  in  E  (xx.  9) ;  in  P  (Lev.  iv.  2,  13,  22,  27; 
V.  17). 

6.  'i5'^:^a  "jn  ^TQ  to  find  grace  in  the  eyes  of  (ver.  11). 
See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  10. 

7.  a'ln  ■'sb  lolth  the  edge  of  the  sword  (ver.  26)  ;  besides 


404  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

in  J  (Josh.  viii.  24  bis) ;  in  E  (Ex.  xvii.  13 ;  Num.  xxi. 
24) ;  in  JE  (Josh.  vi.  21 ;  xix.  47,  in  a  P  connection) ;  in 
D  (Josh.  X.  28,  30,  32,  35,  37,  39;  xi.  11,  12,  14)  and  sev- 
eral times  in  Deut. 

8.  IDy  to  trouble  (ver.  30) ;  besides  in  the  Hexateuch 
only  Josh.  vi.  18  E ;  vii.  25  bis  JE. 

"  Wrought  folly  in  Israel "  is  claimed  as  a  D  phrase 
(Deut.  xxii.  21).  Knobel  says  :  "  The  author  here  naively 
applies  this  later  expression  to  patriarchal  times,  when 
there  was  as  yet  no  people  of  Israel."  The  patriarch  had 
already  received  the  name  of  Israel,  and  he  was  the 
leader  of  a  powerful  clan,  which  subsequently  developed 
into  the  nation.  There  is  no  inappropriateness  in  the 
great  legislator  employing  here  the  legal  phrase  current 
in  his  own  day. 

JACOB   AT   BETHEL,    AND   ISAAC's  DEATH   (CH.    XXXV.) 

The  divine  names  afford  no  ground  for  the  division  of 
this  chapter,  since  El  and  Elohim  alone  occur.  The  rea- 
son is  evident.  The  prominence  here  given  to  the  names 
Bethel  (vs.  1,  3,  6,  7,  8,  15)  and  Israel  (ver.  10),  leads  to 
the  quadruple  repetition  of  El  (vs.  1,  3,  7,  11),  with 
which  Elohim  is  most  naturally  associated  (see  particu- 
larly vs.  7,  15,  also  vs.  1,  9,  10,  11,  13).  Elohim  is  appro- 
priately used  in  ver.  5  to  indicate  that  the  terror  was 
divinely  inspired,  and  did  not  proceed  from  any  human 
source.  Eichhoru  had  no  difficulty  in  admitting  the 
unity  of  the  chapter.  Tuch  did  the  same,  only  except- 
ing the  last  clause  of  both  vs.  1  and  7,  which  speak  of 
the  flight  from  Esau,  of  which,  on  his  hypothesis,  the 
Elohist  knew  nothing.  Ilgen  ^  parcelled  it  between  the 
two  Elohists,  and  this  is  at  present  the  prevalent  fash- 

'  Ilgen's  division  is  almost  identical  with  that  of  Dillmann  ;  he  gives 
to  E  vs.  1-8,  16a,  c,  17,  18,  20-22 ;  to  P  vs.  9-15,  1Gb,  19,  23-29. 


JACOB   AT   BETHEL    (CH.    XXXV.)  405 

ion.  Dillmann  gives  vs.  1-8  to  E  (except  ver.  5  E,  ver. 
6a  P),  vs.  9-15  to  P,  vs.  16-22a  to  E,  and  vs.  22b-29 
to  P. 

JACOB   AT   BETHEL 

Vs.  1-15  plainly  form  one  continuous  narrative.  Jacob 
goes  by  divine  direction  to  Bethel  and  builds  an  altar 
there,  whereupon  God  appears  to  him  and  blesses  him. 
According  to  the  partition  proposed  above,  however,  E 
(vs.  1,  4,  7)  speaks  of  God  having  appeared  to  Jacob  in 
Bethel  and  answered  him  in  his  distress,  plainly  refer- 
ring to  xxviii.  12  sqq.  But  as  the  critics  divide  that 
passage,  E  tells  of  the  vision  of  a  ladder  with  angels  ;  it 
is  only  J  who  tells  of  God  appearing  to  Jacob  and  speak- 
ing with  him.  Hence  Dillmann  finds  it  necessary  to  aiB- 
sume  that  E  has  here  meddled  with  the  text  and  adapted 
it  to  J.  In  ver.  5  the  danger  of  pursuit,  from  which  they 
were  protected  by  a  terror  divinely  sent  upon  the  cities 
round  about,  points  to  the  deed  of  blood  in  ch.  xxxiv., 
and  to  the  apprehension  which  this  awakened  in  Jacob 
(ver.  30).  But  as  that  was  recorded  by  J,  not  by  E,  this 
verse  is  cut  out  of  its  connection  and  assigned  by  Hup- 
feld  to  J  (in  spite  of  Elohim),  and  by  others  to  E.  Ver. 
6a  is  given  to  P,  because  E  calls  the  place  Bethel  (vs. 
1,  3).  That,  however,  was  the  sacred  name  given  to  it 
by  Jacob  ;  its  popular  name  was  Luz,  and  its  introduc- 
tion here  is  with  allusion  to  xxviii.  19.  The  added  clause, 
"  which  is  in  the  land  of  Canaan,"  is  not  a  superfluous 
appendage  due  to  P's  diffuseuess ;  but  like  the  same 
words  in  xxxiii.  18,  it  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Jacob,  after  his  long  absence,  is  now  again  in  the  land  to 
which  the  Lord  had  promised  to  bring  him  (xxviii.  15). 
That  promise,  on  which  Jacob's  vow  to  revisit  Bethel 
was  conditioned,  was  now  fulfilled.  Why  E  should  find  it 
necessary  here  to  insert  a  clause  from  P  in  order  to  state 


406  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

SO  simple  a  fact  as  Jacob's  arrival  at  the  place,  to  which, 
according  to  E,  he  had  been  directed  to  go,  is  not  very 
obvious.  Nevertheless  the  consequence  is  that  P  speaks 
of  Jacob's  coming  to  Bethel,  but  E  does  not;  and 
"  there  "  (ver.  7)  has  nothing  to  refer  to.  The  burial  of 
Deborah  (ver.  8)  is  said  to  be  abruptly  introduced  and 
out  of  connection  with  what  precedes.  But  it  only  in- 
terrupts the  narrative,  as  the  event  itself  interrupted  the 
sacred  transaction  in  the  midst  of  which  it  occurred. 
Moreover,  the  mention  of  Kebekah's  nurse  in  E  is  once 
more  a  reference  to  J  (xxiv.  59),  by  whom  alone  she  had 
been  spoken  of  before,  and  that  merely  to  prepare  the 
way  for  what  is  here  recorded.  The  question  how  she 
came  to  be  with  Jacob  at  this  time  cannot  be  answered 
fdjfrlack  of  information.  The  writer  is  not  giving  her 
biography,  and  we  have  no  right  to  expect  an  account 
of  all  her  movements.  After  Kebekah's  death  it  was 
quite  natural  that  she  shovild  go  to  be  with  Eebekah's 
favorite  son.  The  "  strange  gods "  in  Jacob's  family 
(vs.  2,  4)  find  their  explanation  in  xxxi.  19,  30  sqq.  E. 
The  name  El-bethel  (ver.  7)  is  identical  with  that  by 
which  God  announced  himself  to  Jacob  (xxxi.  13  E). 

P  (ver.  9)  speaks  of  God  apj)earing  to  Jacob  again, 
when  he  came  out  of  Paddan-aram,  with  definite  reference 
to  his  having  appeared  to  him  the  first  time  on  his  way 
to  Paddan-aram  (ver.  1  E),  as  related  neither  by  P  nor 
by  E,  but  by  J  (xxviii.  13).  The  word  "  again  "  is  there- 
fore unceremoniously  stricken  from  the  text  to  make  it 
correspond  with  the  hypothesis.  Keference  is  made 
(ver.  12)  to  God's  giving  the  land  to  Isaac ;  no  such  fact 
is  recorded  by  P,  only  by  J  or  Pt  (xxvi.  3,  4).  God  ap- 
pears to  Jacob  (ver.  9),  as  in  xvii.  1  P  (cf.  xii.  7  ;  xviii. 
1 ;  xxvi.  2,  24  J),  speaks  to  him  in  condescending  terms 
(vs.  10-12)  and  goes  up  from  him  (ver.  13),  from  Avhich  it 
is  plain  that  a  descent  of  the  Lord,  as  in  xi.  5,  7,  is  not 


JACOB  AT   BETHEL   (CH.   XXXV.)  407 

peculiar  to  J.  The  reimposition  of  the  names  "  Israel  " 
(ver.  10)  and  "  Bethel  "  (ver,  15)  is  judged  to  be  incredi- 
ble by  the  critics,  and  claimed  as  evidence  of  two  discrep- 
ant accounts.  But  it  gave  no  trouble  to  B,  and  need  not 
to  us.  There  are  other  like  instances  in  the  sacred  narra- 
tive. It  is  quite  as  likely  that  the  original  writer  thought 
such  rejDetitions  possible  and  reported  them  according!}', 
as  that  the  redactor  could  do  so.  That  no  explanation  of 
Israel  is  here  given  is,  as  Dillmann  confesses,  because 
xxxii.  29  made  it  unnecessary,  and  so  it  is  an  implied  ref- 
erence to  that  passage  in  E  Dillm.  (or  J  Well.,  Kuen.). 
Only  his  critical  stand-point  obliges  him  to  assume  that 
P  must  have  given  an  explanation,  which  B  has  omitted, 
the  only  evidence  of  which  is  that  the  hypothesis  requires 
it.  In  vs.  11, 12,  God  pronounces  upon  Jacob  the  identi- 
cal blessing  granted  to  Abraham  in  terms  corresponding 
with  ch.  xvii.,  thus  fulfilling  the  desire  of  Isaac  (xxviii. 
3,  4)  on  his  behaK.  In  ver.  11  (P)  Jacob  sets  up  a  pillar, 
which  is  esteemed  a  characteristic  of  E,  as  in  ver.  20  E, 
and  pours  oil  upon  it,  as  xxviii.  18  E,  and  a  drink-offer- 
ing, in  evident  contradiction  to  the  critical  notion  that 
according  to  P  offerings  had  no  existence  prior  to  the 
Mosaic  period.  Hence  Kuenen  ("  Hexateuch,"  p.  327) 
thinks  it  necessary  to  attribute  ver.  14  to  R. 

The  manifold  references  to  P,  J,  and  E,  scattered 
throughout  this  closely  connected  paragraph  (vs.  1-15), 
are  not  accounted  for  by  the  division  proposed ;  and  it  is 
impossible  to  make  a  division  that  will  account  for  them. 
The  common  relation  of  this  paragraph  to  all  the  docu- 
ments cannot  be  explained  by  tearing  it  to  shreds  to 
conform  with  the  partition  elsewhere  made.  That  par- 
tition, which  is  irreconcilable  with  this  paragraph,  must 
be  itself  at  fault  in  sundering  what,  as  is  here  shown,  be- 
longs together. 


408  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 


THE   DEATH   OF   RACHEL 

The  next  paragraph  (vs.  16-20)  is  tied  to  different 
documents  in  a  like  embarrassing  manner.  Ch.  xlviii.  7 
(P)  speaks  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Kacliel  at  Ephrath, 
in  terms  nearly  identical  with  vs.  16,  19.  Ch.  xxix.  32- 
XXX.  24  (J  and  E)  records  the  birth  of  eleven  of  Jacob's 
sons,  and  finds  its  complement  in  this  account  of  the 
birth  of  Benjamin.  This  final  paragraph,  which  com- 
pletes the  number  of  his  sons,  is  preparatory  to  the  re- 
capitulation (vs.  22b-26  P),  in  which  they  are  arranged 
according  to  their  respective  mothers,  and  in  the  order  of 
their  birth,  in  exact  correspondence  with  the  detailed 
narrative  previously  given.  That  the  child  now  born  is 
Rachel's,  agrees  with  xxx.  24b  J.  That  she  loses  her 
life  in  giving  him  birth  is  an  evident  reminder  of  xxx,  1 
E.  The  birth  scene  recalls  xxv.  24-26  ;  xxxviii.  27  sqq. 
J.  In  ver.  18  the  name  is  given  both  by  the  mother  as 
in  J  and  E  (see  ch.  xxx.),  and  by  the  father  as  in  P  (see 
xvi.  15  ;  xxi.  3).  It  is  alleged  that  P  could  not  have 
connected  the  birth  of  Benjamin  with  his  mother's  death 
at  Ephrath,  since  this  is  in  conflict  with  vs.  24,  26,  P, 
where  Jacob's  twelve  sons  are  said  to  have  been  born  in 
Paddan-aram.  But  in  like  manner,  it  is  said  (xlvi.  15), 
that  Leah  bare  thirty-three  sons  and  daughters  to  Jacob 
in  Paddan-aram,  and  (ver.  18)  Zilpah  bare  unto  Jacob 
sixteen.  In  Ex.  i.  5,  seventy  souls  are  said  to  have  come 
out  of  the  loins  of  Jacob,  including  Jacob  himself  (cf. 
Gen.  xlvi.  26,  27).  1  Cor.  xv.  5  speaks  of  Christ  being 
"  seen  of  the  twelve  "  after  his  resurrection,  although 
Judas  had  gone  to  his  own  place.  R  had  no  difficulty  in 
understanding  that  Jacob's  sons  could  be  spoken  of  in 
the  general  as  born  in  Paddan-aram,  though  Benjamin's 
birth  in  Canaan  had  just  been  mentioned.     Is  E's  inter- 


THE   DEATH   OF   RACHEL   (CH.    XXXV.)  409 

pretation  less  rational  than  that  of  the  critics  ?     May  not 
the  writer  have  meant  it  as  the  redactor  understood  it  ? 

Dillmann  further  urges  that  E  could  not  have  men- 
tioned Rachel's  death  at  this  time,  since  that  is  in  con- 
flict with  xxxvii.  10  E.  But  instead  of  contrariety  there 
is  perfect  accord.  As  the  eleven  stars  denoted  Joseph's 
brethren,  Benjamin  must  have  been  one  of  them.  Ra- 
chel's death  is  likewise  implied,  for  had  she  been  living, 
as  well  as  Leah,  there  would  have  been  two  moons  to 
make  obeisance  instead  of  one. 

The  reference  of  this  paragraph  to  R,  who  is  supposed 
to  have  written  it  with  reference  to  P,  J,  and  E,  is  equiv- 
alent to  a  confession  that  it  is  an  indivisible  unit  as  it 
now  stands,  and  that  it  was  written  by  one  cognizant  of 
matter  to  be  found  in  each  of  the  documents ;  by  one, 
that  is,  who  gave  Genesis  its  present  form,  of  which  the 
so-called  documents  are  component  parts,  a  view  which 
is  quite  consistent  with  their  never  having  had  a  separate 
existence. 

There  is  a  difficulty  in  respect  to  the  location  of  Ra- 
chel's sepulchre.  According  to  vs.  16,  19 ;  xlviii.  7,  it 
lay  upon  the  road  from  Bethel,  where  "  there  was  still 
some  way  to  come  to  Ephrath  "  or  Bethlehem  ;  this 
corresponds  with  its  traditional  site,  a  short  distance 
north  of  Bethlehem.  But  according  to  1  Sam,  x.  2,  Saul 
in  returning  to  Gibeah  from  Samuel,  whose  home  was  in 
Ramah,  passed  by  Rachel's  sepulchre  ;  from  which  it 
might  be  inferred  that  it  lay  considerably  further  north. 
Thenius,  Dillmann,  and  others  cut  the  knot  by  rejecting 
the  clause  "the  same  is  Bethlehem  "  (xxxv.  19 ;  xlviii.  7), 
as  an  erroneous  gloss,  and  assuming  that  there  was  a 
another  Ephrath,  not  otherwise  known,  much  nearer  to 
Bethel.  But  the  correctness  of  its  identification  with 
Bethlehem  is  confirmed  by  Ruth  iv.  11  ;  Mic.  v.  1  (E.  V., 
ver.  2).      Delitzsch,  in  the  fourth  edition  of  his  "  Gene- 


410  THE  GENEEATIONS   OF  ISAAC 

sis,"  adlierecl  to  the  traditional  site  and  assumed  that 
Samuel  directed  Saul  to  take  "  an  unreasonably  circuit- 
ous route  "  on  his  way  homeward.  In  his  last  edition  he 
conceives  that  variant  traditions  as  to  the  place  of  Ra- 
chel's burial  are  represented  in  these  passages.  Kurtz  ' 
seeks  a  solution  in  the  indefiniteness  of  the  term  nn23 
some  luay,  which  is  of  doubtful  meaning,  and  only  occurs 
once  besides  (2  Kin.  v.  19).  He  supposes  it  to  mean 
quite  a  long  distance,  so  that  the  place  described  might 
be  remote  from  Bethlehem,  and  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Bamah. 

Possibly,  however,  Dr.  Robinson  uncovers  the  real 
source  of  the  difficulty  by  suggesting  that  we  do  not 
know  where  it  was  that  Saul  met  with  Samuel.  Ramah, 
the  home  of  Samuel,  is  in  his  opinion  not  the  Ramah  of 
Benjamin,  north  of  Jerusalem,  and  has  not  yet  been  cer- 
tainly identified.  And  he  adds,~  "After  all,  there  is 
perhaps  a  question  lying  back  of  this  whole  discussion, 
viz.,  whether  the  city  where  Saul  and  the  servant  came 
to  Samuel  was  his  own  city,  Ramah  ?  The  name  of  the 
city  is  nowhere  given  ;  and  the  answer  of  the  maidens 
(1  Sam.  ix.  11,  12)  would  perhaps  rather  imply  that 
Samuel  had  just  arrived,  possibly  on  one  of  his  yearly 
circuits,  in  which  he  judged  Israel  in  various  cities  (1 
Sam.  vii.  15-17)."  If  now,  in  the  absence  of  definite  in- 
formation on  the  subject,  it  is  jiermissible  with  Keil  to 
conjecture  that  Saul  found  Samuel  in  some  city  south- 
west of  Bethlehem,  Rachel's  sepulchre  might  easily  be 
on  his  way  back  to  Gibeali.  Samuel's  statement  that  he 
would  "  find  two  men  by  Rachel's  sepulchre,  in  the  bor- 
der of  Benjamin,  at  Zelzah,"  need  create  no  embarrass- 
ment, for  Benjamin's  southern  -bonndary  ran  through  the 
valley  of  Hinnom,  south  of  Jerusalem  to  En-rogel  (Josh. 

'  Geschichte  des  Alten  Bundes,  i  ,  p.   270. 

'  Biblical  Researches,  ii.,  p.  10  (Edition  of  1856). 


THE   DEATH   OF   RACHEL   (CH.    XXXV.)  411 

xviii.  16),  about  three  miles  from  Eachel's  sepulchre, 
which  is  sufficiently  near  to  justify  the  form  of  expression 
used. 

If,  however,  Samuel  was  at  Eamah,  and  this  is  the 
same  with  the  Kamah  north  of  Jerusalem,  Rachel's  sep- 
ulchre of  1  Sam.  X.  2  cannot  well  be  that  of  Genesis. 
But  as  the  bones  of  Joseph  were  transported  to  the  in- 
heritance of  the  tribes  descended  from  him  (Josh.  xxiv. 
32),  why  may  not  the  Benjamites  have  erected  a  ceno- 
taph in  their  territory  in  honor  of  the  mother  of  their 
tribe  ? 

The  repetition  of  the  word  '$iy^'^  journeyed  (xxxv.  21), 
marks  this  as  a  continuation  of  the  narrative  of  vs.  5  and 
16  ;  but  the  critics  complete  the  patchwork  of  the  chap- 
ter by  giving  ver.  22a  to  J,  because  of  the  reference  to  it 
in  xlix.  4,  and  ver.  21  must  necessarily  go  with  it.  And 
this  though  "  Israel "  in  these  verses  is  a  plain  allusion 
to  ver.  10  P,  or  xxxii.  29  E  (so  Dillmann)  ;  and  "  the 
tower  of  Eder  "  was  at  Bethlehem,  the  objective  point  of 
vs.  16,  19,  R  or  P. 

GKOUNDS   OF   PARTITION   IRRELEVANT 

While  the  entire  chapter  is  thus  closely  linked  together 
in  all  its  parts,  it  is  observable  that  the  critical  severance 
is  based  not  upon  the  contents  of  the  chapter,  whether 
matter  or  diction,  but  upon  its  numerous  points  of  con- 
nection with  other  passages,  which  the  critics  have  seen 
fit  to  parcel  among  the  so-called  documents.  It  is  an  at- 
tempt to  force  the  hypothesis  through  this  chapter  for 
reasons  which  lie  wholly  outside  of  itself.  And  it  is 
still  further  observable  that  the  critics  have  not  suc- 
ceeded in  adjusting  this  chapter  into  conformity  with  the 
partition  elsewhere.  In  spite  of  the  attempt  to  prevent 
it,  its  several  sections  are  in  repeated  instances  related 


412  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   ISAAC 

to  other  clocumeuts  than  those  to  which  the  critics  assign 
them.  These  intimate  bonds  of  relationship  with  other 
passages  accordingly  constrain  to  precisely  the  023posite 
conclusion  from  that  which  has  been  claimed.  They  do 
not  justify  the  reduction  of  the  chapter  to  a  series  of 
fragments  of  diverse  origin  in  spite  of  its  manifest  unity  ; 
but  this  unity  shows  the  falsity  of  that  partition  in  other 
parts  of  Genesis  which  is  irreconcilable  with  it. 

CONCLUSION   or  THE   SECTION 

Jacob's  family  is  now  complete,  and  he  is  settled  in 
Canaan.  His  subordinate  position  as  a  member  of  the 
family  of  Isaac  terminates  here,  and  he  is  henceforth  re- 
garded as  the  head  of  the  chosen  race,  which  is  to  bear 
his  name,  Israel.  That  division  of  the  history  entitled 
the  Generations  of  Isaac  is  accordingly  concluded  at 
this  point,  and  is  follow^ed,  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
book,  first,  by  the  divergent  line,  the  Generations  of 
Esau  ;  and  then  by  the  direct  line,  the  Generations  of 
Jacob. 

Isaac's  death  is  mentioned  at  the  close  of  this  chapter, 
not  because  this  is  its  exact  chronological  place,  but  in 
order  to  bring  this  section  of  the  history  to  a  close  be- 
fore entering  upon  Jacob's  family  life  in  Canaan  ;  just 
as  the  death  of  Terah  (xi.  32),  and  that  of  Abraham  (xxv. 
8),  are  recorded  in  order  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  his- 
tory of  their  successors.  But  as  Terah  survived  the  call 
of  Abraham  (xii.  1,  4),  and  even  the  birth  of  Isaac  (xxi. 
5 ;  cf.  xi.  26),  and  as  Abraham  survived  the  birth  of  Ja- 
cob and  Esau  (xxv.  26  ;  cf.  ver.  7),  so  Isaac  continued  to 
live  until  Joseph  had  reached  his  thirtieth  year,  and  was 
advanced  to  be  the  second  ruler  in  Egypt.  Jacob  was 
one  hundred  and  thirty  years  old  when  presented  before 
Pharaoh  (xlvii.  9),  in  the  second  year  of  the  famine  (xlv. 


THE   DEATH   OF   ISAAC    (CH.    XXXV.)  413 

11).  In  the  year  preceding  the  first  of  plenty  he  was, 
therefore,  one  hundred  and  twenty,  and  Joseph  was 
thirty  (xli.  46) ;  this  was  the  year  of  Isaac's  death  (xxxv. 
28  ;  XXV.  26).  It  thus  appears  that  Jacob  was  ninety 
years  old  when  Joseph  was  born  ;  he  had  then  been  with 
Laban  fourteen  years  (xxx.  25  sqq. ;  xxxi.  41).  He  was 
consequently  seventy-six  when  he  left  home  for  Paddan- 
aram.  Isaac  was  at  that  time  one  hundred  and  thii'ty- 
six,  and  was  old  and  blind,  and  might  well  say  that  he 
"  knew  not  the  day  of  his  death  "  (xxvii.  1,  2) ;  but  it  is 
not  said,  as  has  sometimes  been  alleged,  that  he  was  on 
his  deathbed  and  near  his  end.  He  lived  forty-four 
years  longer  ;  and  there  is  no  statement  or  implication 
in  the  text  inconsistent  with  this. 

Dillmann  infers  from  xxvi.  34,  35  ;  xxvii.  46 ;  and 
xxviii.  1-9,  that  Jacob  could  only  have  been  between 
forty  and  fifty  when  he  went  to  Paddan-aram.  But  the 
facts  that  Esau  mamed  at  forty,  that  his  Canaanitish 
wives  gave  great  offence  to  Isaac  and  Eebekah,  and  that 
this  is  made  a  reason  for  Jacob's  going  elsewhere  for  a 
wife,  do  not  warrant  a  conclusion  as  to  Jacob's  age  at 
variance  with  definite  data  elsewhere  supplied.  Esau 
had  been  married  thirty-five  years  when  Jacob  left  home. 
Judged  by  the  present  standard  of  human  life,  Jacob's 
marriage  took  place  at  a  very  advanced  age.  But  this 
must  be  considered  in  connection  with  patriarchal  lon- 
gevity. Jacob  reached  the  age  of  one  hundred  and 
forty-seven  (xlvii.  28) ;  Isaac,  one  hundred  and  eighty 
(xxxv.  28) ;  Abraham,  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  (xxv. 
7).  Abraham  was  eighty-six  years  old  when  his  first  son 
Ishmael  was  born  (xvi.  16),  and  one  hundred  at  the  birth 
of  Isaac  (xxi.  5). 

No  argument  for  critical  partition  is  drawn  by  Dill- 
mann from  the  diction  of  this  chapter.  The  words  com- 
monly classed  as  belonging  to  P,  in  vs.  11,  12,  are  bor- 


414  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ISAAC 

rowed  from  cli.  xvii.,  where  they  have  abeady  been 
considered  ;  and  those  of  vs.  28,  29,  are  identical  with 
XXV.  7,  8.  It  should  be  noted  that  for  ^S"'bnn'i  Pinion 
W2'^r}bl2W  purify  yourselves  and  change  your  garments  (ver. 
2),  Ex.  xix.  10  substitutes  nri'b'aic  ^capl  nnttj"lp1  sanctify 
them  and  let  them  7vash  their  garments,  though  both  are 
referred  to  E.  Also  in  the  phrase  come  forth  from  the 
loins,  ver.  11  has  D^ibn,  while  xlvi.  26  ;  Ex.  i.  5,  have 
•yn^,  though  all  are  referred  to  P.  The  same  writer  may 
thus,  by  the  confession  of  the  critics,  use  different  ex- 
pressions for  the  same  idea.  Accordingly,  such  differ- 
ences are  not  always  nor  necessarily  an  indication  of  dis- 
tinct documents. 


IX 

THE  GENERATIONS  OF  ESAU   (CH.  XXXVI. ;  XXXVII.  1) 

OPINIONS   OF   CRITICS 

EiCHHORN^  attributed  ch.  xxx^d.  to  an  independent 
source,  different  from  both  P  and  J,  and  sought  thus  to 
account  for  its  divergence  from  other  passages  in  Gene- 
sis, particularly  in  certain  proper  names;  he  did  not, 
however,  dispute  its  unity. 

Vater  '^  considered  it  a  mass  of  fragments.  He  says  : 
"  No  reader  of  ch.  xxxvi.  can  fail  to  see  that  it  is  made 
up  of  many  pieces.  There  are  six  titles  in  it,  viz.,  vs.  1, 
9,  15,  20,  31,  40.  With  each  of  the  first  three  titles 
there  begins  a  special  family-tree  of  Esau,  and  the  repe- 
tition of  all  the  identical  names  strikes  the  eye  at  once. 
The  same  concluding  Avords  occur  in  ver.  19  as  those 
with  which  another  fragment  closes  (ver.  8).  The  piece 
that  begins  with  ver.  31,  as  well  as  that  which  begins 
with  ver.  40,  is  a  list  of  the  kings  of  Edom  ;  and  that 
from  ver.  31  is  expressly  a  list  of  the  kings  who  reigned 
in  the  land  of  Edom  before  the  Israelites  had  a  king." 

After  the  masterly  refutation  of  Vater  by  F.  H. 
Kanke,"  it  became  customary  to  refer  the  entire  chapter 
to  P.  Thus  Knobel :  "The  Horite-Edomite  tribal  list, 
though  not  preserved  altogether  unaltered  (see  ver.  2),  is 
a  work  of  the  Elohist,  who  composed  all  the  regularly 

'  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  4th  Edition,  iii.,  p.  135. 

"  Commentar  liber  den  Pentateuch,  iii.,  p.  435. 

'  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Pentatencli,  i.,  pp.  243  sqq. 


416  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   ESAU 

drawn  up  genealogical  tables  of  Genesis,  and  could  not 
omit  the  Edomites,  since  tliej  stood  nearer  to  tlie  Israel- 
ites than  the  other  peoples  descended  from  Terah  the 
father  of  Abraham."- 

The  assault  upon  the  unity  of  the  chapter  was,  how- 
ever, renewed  by  Hupfeld,i  who  declared  that  "  its  het- 
erogeneous genealogical  lists  were  only  held  together  by 
a  geographical  conception,  their  relation  to  the  laud  of 
Edom  and  its  inhabitants  ;  "  that  "  the  primitive  inhab- 
itants of  the  country,  the  Horites,  and  the  earliest  Edom- 
ite  kings,  do  not  stand  in  the  remotest  relation  to  the 
theocratic  history  of  the  patriarchs,  as  traced  by  P  ;  and 
that  even  the  lines  of  descent  from  Esau  cannot  be  from 
P  in  their  present  form,"  He  ascribed  to  P  only  vs.  1- 
8  ;  and  even  here  he  maintained  that  the  last  clause  in 
both  ver.  1  and  ver,  8  is  a  later  gloss,  and  that  the  names 
of  Esau's  wives  (vs.  2,  3)  have  been  corrupted  into  con- 
formity with  the  other  sources,  from  which  the  rest  of  the 
chapter  w^as  taken  by  J  or  K.  Kayser  assigns  vs.  1-8  to 
P,  the  rest  to  J.  Wellhausen  attributes  vs.  6-8,  40-43 
to  P  ;  vs.  31-39  are  preserved  unaltered  from  JE,  and 
the  remainder  is  derived  from  other  sources,  principally 
JE,  and  remodelled  after  the  style  of  P.  Schrader  gives 
the  whole  chapter  to  P,  except  vs.  40-43.  Kuenen' 
adopts  the  division  of  Wellhausen,  but  adds :  "  The  re- 
sult is  not  quite  satisfactory,  for  one  would  have  expected 
more  ample  information  concerning  the  Edomites  than  is 
contained  in  vs.  40-43,  Perhaps  a  list  of  Esau's  descend- 
ants, which  was  given  at  tliis  point  in  P,  has  been  super- 
seded by  vs.  1-5,  9-19."  So  that  after  removing  part  of 
the  chapter,  the  critics  feel  the  need  of  it  or  its  equiva- 
lent. Dillmann,  followed  by  Delitzsch  and  Vatke,  re- 
gards the  whole  chapter  as  belonging  to  P,  though  modi- 
fied in  some  particulars  by  R. 

1  Quelleii,  p.  61.  ^  Hexateucli,  p.  68. 


tiSAU's   DESCENDANTS    (CH.   XXXVI.)  417 

It  would  appear,  therefore,  that  here  is  another  in- 
stance in  which  the  critics'  affirmation  does  not  hold 
good,  that  "  whatever  difficnlty  may  attend  the  separation 
of  J  and  E,  the  writer  P,  as  opposed  to  both  of  them,  is 
always  distinct  and  decisive." 

UNITY  OF   THE   CHAPTEIt 

As  no  name  of  God  occurs  in  this  chapter,  no  plea  for 
division  can  arise  from  this  quarter.  We  have  the  au- 
thority of  Dillmann  for  saying  that  the  st^de  is  uniform 
throughout,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  that 
militates  against  the  unity  of  the  chapter.  In  his  second 
edition  he  says  expressly  :  "  The  fine  adjustmeiit  and  ar- 
rangement of  the  piece  speaks  for  the  unity  of  the  com- 
position and  for  P.  This  piece  is  rather  a  model  of 
the  w^ay  and  manner  in  which  he  was  accustomed  to 
present  the  material  that  lay  before  him."  To  the  ob- 
jections that  the  Horites  (vs.  20  sqq.),  and  the  kings  of 
Edom  (vs.  31  sqq.),  do  not  fall  within  the  author's  plan 
he  very  properly  attributes  no  weight  whatever.  The 
shceme  upon  which  the  book  of  Genesis  is  constructed 
made  it  essential  that  an  account  should  be  given  of  the 
descendants  of  Esau  ;  and  the  greater  nearness  of  his  re- 
lation to  Jacob  made  it  natural  that  a  larger  space 
should  be  given  to  them  than  to  the  descendants  of  Ish- 
mael  and  of  Keturah  (ch.  xxv.)  :  It  had  been  revealed  to 
Rebekah  that  two  nations  would  spring  from  her  twin 
children  (xxv.  23).  This  must  be  verified  in  the  case  of 
Esau  as  well  as  of  Jacob.  If  the  princes  sprung  from 
Ishmael  were  enumerated,  why  not  the  chiefs  and  kings 
of  the  race  of  Esau?  The  Horites  were  the  primitive  in- 
habitants of  Mount  Seir.  These  were  subjugated  and  in 
part  destroyed  by  Esau  and  his  descendants  (Deut.  ii. 
12,  22),  who  amalgamated  with  the  remnant,  as  appears 
27 


418  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   ESAU 

from  the  chapter  before  us  (ver.  2  cf.  ver.  24,  ver.  12  cf. 
ver.  22).  In  order  to  a  correct  and  comprehensive  view 
of  the  Edomites  it  was  consequently  necessary  to  include 
the  Horites,  as  is  here  done. 

The  materials  embraced  in  the  chapter  are,  therefore, 
the  proper  ones  to  be  introduced  in  this  place.  They 
are,  in  addition,  clearly  and  systematically  arranged. 
There  is  first  a  statement  of  Esau's  immediate  family  (vs. 
1-5),  which  is  summed  up  (ver.  5b)  in  the  words :  "  These 
are  the  sons  of  Esau,  which  were  born  unto  him  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,"  precisely  corresponding  to  the  summary 
of  Jacob's  family  (xxxv.  26b) :  "  These  are  the  sons  of 
Jacob,  which  were  born  to  him  in  Paddan-aram."  This 
naturally  leads  to  the  mention  of  Esau's  removal  from 
Canaan  to  Mount  Seir  (vs.  6-8).  The  paragraph  relating 
to  his  immediate  family  (vs.  1-8)  is  preliminary  to  the 
section  which  follows  concerning  the  nation  descended 
from  him.  This  is  indicated  by  the  title  prefixed  to 
them  respectively  (ver.  1) :  "  These  are  the  generations 
of  Esau ;  the  same  is  Edom,"  where,  as  in  ver.  8b,  Edom 
is  his  personal  name  (cf.  xxv.  30) ;  but  in  ver.  9  :  "  These 
are  the  generations  of  Esau,  the  father  of  Edom,  in 
Mount  Seir,"  as  in  ver.  43b,  Edom  is  the  national  name. 
In  tracing  the  unfolding  of  Esau's  family  to  a  nation  pre- 
cisely the  same  method  is  pursued  as  in  the  like  develop- 
ment of  Jacob's  family  in  ch.  xlvi.,  whose  sons  give  name 
to  the  tribes,  and  their  sons  to  the  tribal  divisions  or  fam- 
ilies (cf.  Num.  xxvi.  5  sqq.).  So  here  the  sons  are  again 
named,  no  longer  as  individuals  as  in  vs.  4,  5,  but  as 
progenitors  of  the  nation,  and  their  sons  are  given  (vs. 
10-14),  who,  it  is  immediately  added,  were  chieftains  of 
their  respective  clans  (vs.  15-19).  The  same  method  is 
next  followed  with  the  Horites  by  first  naming  the  sous 
or  principal  divisions,  then  their  sons  or  the  subdivisions, 
the  national  purj^ort  of  the  list  being  again  indicated  by 


ESAU'S   DESCENDANTS    (CH.    XXXVI.)  419 

enumerating  the  sons  as  chieftains  of  their  respective 
clans  (vs.  20-30).  Since  these  various  clans  were  com- 
bined into  one  national  organization,  with  a  monarch  at 
its  head,  a  list  is  next  given  of  the  kings  who  had  reigned 
in  the  land  of  Edom  (vs.  31-39).  And  to  this  is  added 
finally  (vs.  40-43)  a  hst  of  those  who  presided  over  the 
various  districts  or  territorial  divisions  of  the  country, 
"  the  chiefs  of  Edom,  according  to  their  habitations  in 
the  land  of  their  possession,"  as  distinguished  from  the 
families  or  genealogical  divisions  before  given  (vs.  15-19). 
The  lack  of  correspondence  between  the  names  in  these 
two  divisions,  made  on  an  entirely  different  principle,  in- 
volves no  contradiction,  as  is  assumed  by  Wellhausen 
and  Schrader,  and  is  the  basis  of  their  disintegrating 
analysis,  in  which  they  reach  such  opposite  conclusions. 
And  the  dislocations  and  erasures  proposed  by  Brus- 
ton  ^  are  not  only  arbitrarj^,  but  mar  the  symmetry  of  the 
chapter  as  noAv  exhibited.  The  omission  of  ver.  1,  so  as 
to  attach  vs.  2-8  to  the  previous  section  of  the  history, 
the  Generations  of  Isaac,  disregards  the  fact  that  it  had 
been  brought  to  a  formal  close  by  the  deatli  and  burial 
of  Isaac  (xxxv.  29 ;  cf.  xxv.  8-10,  ix.  29),  and  sunders  the 
record  of  Esau's  family  from  that  of  the  nation  sprung 
from  him,  both  of  which  properly  belong  to  the  Genera- 
tions of  Esau.  And  the  transfer  of  xxxvii.  1,  so  as  imme- 
diately to  follow  xxxvi.  8,  needlessly  interrupts  the  state- 
ments concerning  Esau  ;  the  verse  is  in  its  proper  place 
after  those  statements  are  concluded,  and  just  preceding 
the  next  section  (xxxvii.  2  sqq.),  to  which  it  is  prepara- 
tory. Nor  are  vs.  20-28  to  be  dropped  on  the  plea  that 
vs.  20,  21  are  a  doublet  to  vs.  29,  30  ;  they  sustain  pre- 
cisely the  same  relation  to  one  another  as  vs.  15-18  to  vs. 
10-14,  a  relation  not  of  mutual  exclusion  but  of  co-exist- 
ence, as  indicated  in  ver.  19.  And  the  correspondence  of 
I  As  quoted  by  Dillmann. 


420  THE   GENERATIONS   OF    ESAU 

VS.  24,  25  to  ver.  2,  and  of  ver.  22  to  ver.  12,  instead  of 
discrediting  the  paragraph  in  which  they  are  found,  tends 
to  confirm  its  right  to  a  place  in  this  chapter. 

The  nnity  and  the  self-consistency  of  the  chapter  have 
now  been  sufficiently  vindicated.  We  are  not  concerned 
to  establish  its  correspondence  with  P  or  any  one  of  the 
so-called  documents,  which  exist  only  in  the  fancj^  of  the 
critics.  And  when  Wellhausen  objects  that  a  remark  in- 
terjected in  the  midst  of  a  genealogy  like  that  in  ver.  24, 
"  this  is  Anali  who  found  the  hot  springs  in  the  wilder- 
ness, as  he  fed  the  asses  of  Zibeon  his  father,"  is  without 
analogy  in  P,  though  frequent  in  JE,  and  Dillmann  con- 
tends, on  the  other  hand,  that  the  peculiar  style  of  P  runs 
through  the  entire  chapter ;  or  when  Wellhausen  affirms 
that  the  allusion  to  kings  in  Israel  (ver.  31)  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  from  P,  and  Dillmann  maintains,  ^er  contra,  that 
P  and  P  alone  of  all  the  documents  makes  such  allusions, 
we  must  leave  the  critics  to  settle  these  domestic  differ- 
ences between  themselves.  It  only  remains  for  us  to 
consider  the  alleged  discrepancies  between  this  chapter 
and  other  parts  of  Genesis,  and  alleged  anachronisms 
which  are  supposed  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  author- 
ship of  Moses. 

NO  DISCEEPANCIES 

It  is  claimed  that  xxxvi.  2,  3  conflicts  with  xxvi.  34, 
xxviii.  9,  in  respect  to  the  wives  of  Esau.  In  the  opin- 
ion of  Wellhausen^  "this  is  the  most  open  contradiction 
in  the  whole  of  Genesis  ;  "  and  he  adds,  "  either  the  en- 
tire literary  criticism  of  the  biblical  historical  books  is 
baseless  and  nugatory,  or  these  passages  are  from  diiferent 
sources."  We  thank  him  for  the  word.  If  the  divisive 
criticism  stakes  its  all  on  finding  a  discrepancy  here,  its 
prospects  are  not  very  brilliant. 

'  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  p.  49. 


ESAU'S   DESCENDANTS   (CH.    XXXVI.)  421 

Esau's  wives,  according  to  chs.  xxvi.,  xxviii.,  were  Ju- 
dith, the  daughter  of  Beeri  the  Hittite,  Basemath,  the 
daughter  of  Elon  the  Hittite,  and  Mahalath,  the  daughter 
of  Ishmael  and  the  sister  of  Nebaioth.  According  to  ch. 
xxxvi,,  they  were  Adah,  the  daughter  of  Elon  the  Hittite, 
Aholibamah,  the  daughter  of  Anah,  the  daughter  of  Zil)- 
eon  the  Hivite,  and  Basemath,  Ishmael's  daughter,  sister 
of  Nebaioth. 

There  is  a  difference  here  in  the  names  of  the  women 
and  of  their  fathers.  Nevertheless,  Noldeke  finds  no 
difficulty  in  referring  all  to  P,  and  assuming  that  he  de- 
rived his  materials  from  discrepant  authorities.  And  it 
is  not  easy  to  see  why  the  original  author,  be  he  P  or 
who  he  may,  may  not  have  done  this  as  well  as  E.  But 
the  discrepancy  is,  after  all,  imaginary.  It  is  quite  in- 
supposable  that  R  or  P,  or  any  sensible  writer,  could 
have  inserted  without  comment  or  explanation  the  bald 
contradiction  here  alleged.  That  the  passages  in  ques- 
tion are  not  unrelated  is  plain  from  the  back  reference 
in  xxxvi.  2a,  "  Esau  took  his  wives  of  the  daughters  of 
Canaan,"  to  xxviii.  1,  8  ;  and  that  they  are  not  altogether 
at  variance  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  according  to 
both  statements  Esau  had  three  wives  ;  two  were  Canaan- 
ites,  one  of  these  being  the  daughter  of  Elon  the  Hittite, 
and  the  third  was  a  daughter  of  Ishmael  and  sister  of 
Nebaioth.  The  other  Canaanitess  is  said  (xxvi.  34)  to 
have  been  the  daughter  of  Beeri  the  Hittite,  and  (xxxvi. 
2)  the  daughter  of  Anah,  the  daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hi- 
vite. Ranke  understands  this  to  mean  that  Beeri  was 
her  father  and  Anah  her  mother,  so  that  there  is  no  vari- 
ance between  the  statements,  which  are  mutually  sui:»ple- 
mentary,  as  when  Dinah  is  called  (xxxiv.  1)  the  daughter 
of  Leah,  and  (ver.  3)  the  daughter  of  Jacob.  But  this  is 
incorrect,  since  Anah,  the  parent  of  Aholibamah,  was  the 
son,  and  not  the  daughter,  of  Zibeon  (xxxvi.  24,  25).    Two 


422  tup:  generations  of  esau 

solutions  here  offer  themselves  of  the  apparent  discrep- 
ancy. It  is  exceedingly  probable  that  Beeri  was  another 
name  of  Anah,  given  to  him,  as  Heugstenberg  suggests, 
in  consequence  of  his  discovery  of  warm  springs  (ver.  2-4) 
(Beer,  spring ;  Beeri,  spring-man).  Or  Beeri  may  have 
been  the  son  of  Anah ;  Aholibamah  is  said  (ver.  2)  to  be 
the  daughter  of  Anah  and  also  the  daughter  of  Zibeon, 
as  Basemath  (ver.  3)  is  the  daughter  of  Ishmael  and  the 
sister  of  Nebaioth) ;  here  it  is  plain  that  "  daughter  "  in 
the  second  clause  cannot  be  taken  in  the  strict  sense  of 
an  immediate  offspring,  but  must  have  the  wider  mean- 
ing of  descendant  (cf.  also  ver.  39).  Why  not  in  the 
preceding  clause  likewise  ?  Why  may  she  not  have  been 
the  daughter  of  Beeri,  the  granddaughter  of  Anah,  and 
the  great-granddaughter  of  Zibeon  (cf.  Matt.  i.  1,  and 
compare  Ezra  v.  1  with  Zech.  i.  1)  ?  the  writer  preferring 
to  link  her  name  in  this  genealogy  with  her  distinguished 
ancestors  rather  than  with  her  own  father,  who  may  have 
been  of  less  note.  We  may  not  have  the  data  for  deter- 
mining with  certainty  which  is  the  true  solution.  But 
so  long  as  any  reasonable  solution  can  be  shown  to  exist, 
the  difficulty  cannot  be  pronounced  insoluble. 

And  as  her  parentage  is  thus  readily  explicable,  so  are 
the  seemingly  variant  statements  respecting  her  nation- 
ality. That  she  is  said  (xxvi.  34)  to  be  of  Hittite  and 
(xxxvi.  2)  of  Hivite  descent  is  not  more  strange  than  that 
Zibeon  is  called  a  Hivite  (ver.  2)  and  a  Horite  (ver.  20). 
The  critics  commonly  insist  that  the  former  is  a  textual 
error,  and  that  Hivite  should  here  be  changed  to  Horite, 
which  involves  only  a  slight  alteration  in  a  single  letter 
(iin  to  i-in).  Then  if  (ver.  2)  Esau's  wife  can  be  a  daugh- 
ter of  Canaan,  and  at  the  same  time  descended  from  a 
Horite,  what  is  there  in  her  being  a  Hittite  to  conflict 
with  her  Horite  descent  ?  The  fact  is  that  the  names  of 
the  Canaanitish  tribes  are  not  always  used  with  rigorous 


ESAu'S   DESCENDANTS    (CH.   XXXVI.)  423 

precision.  Hittite  (Josh.  i.  4),  like  Canaanite  and  Amor- 
ite  (Gen.  xv.  16),  may  be  used  in  a  narrower  or  a  wider 
sense,  either  of  the  particular  tribe  so  designated  or  of 
the  population  of  Palestine  generally.  And  the  term 
Horite  is  not  properly  indicative  of  race  or  descent,  but 
of  a  particular  style  of  habitation  ;  it  is  equivalent  to 
cave-dweller.  There  is  no  e"\ddence  that  the  Horites 
might  not  be  allied  in  whole  or  in  part  to  the  Hivites ; 
and  Hittite  might  be  applied  in  a  general  sense  to  a  Hi- 
vite.' 

The  only  remaining  ground  of  objection  is  that  Esau's 
wives  bear  different  names  in  the  two  passages.  If  but 
one  was  changed,  it  might  be  thought  an  error  of  tran- 
scription. But  as  all  three  are  altered,  it  must  be  due 
to  some  common  cause.  Nothing,  however,  is  more 
common  than  this  duplication  of  names  (cf.  Gen.  xvii.  5, 
15  ;  XXV.  30  ;  xxxv.  10,  18 ;  xli.  45  ;  Ex.  ii.  18,  cf.  iii.  1  ; 
Num.  xiii.  16  ;  Judg.  vii.  1 ;  2  Kin.  xxiii.  34  ;  xxiv.  17  ; 
Dan.  i.  7,  etc.),  especially  at  some  important  crisis  or 
change  of  life.  So  Tabitha  was  also  called  Dorcas  (Acts 
ix.  36j,  and  Peter  Cephas,  and  Thomas  Didymus,  and 
Joses  Barnabas,  and  Saul  Paul.  If  a  former  emperor  of 
the  French  were  called  Napoleon  on  one  page  and  Buo- 
naparte on  another,  or  a  late  prime  minister  of  England 
were  spoken  of  at  one  time  as  Disraeli  and  at  another  as 
Beaconsfield,  it  would  create  no  surprise.  Harmer  ^  ob- 
serves that  "  the  Eastern  people  are  oftentimes  known  by 
several  names ;  this  might  arise  fi-om  their  having  mor(> 
names  than  one  given  them  at  first ;  or  it  might  arise 
from  their  assuming  a  new  and  different  name  upon  par- 
ticular occurrences  in  life.  This  last  is  most  probable, 
since  such  a  custom  continues  in  the  East  to  this  day  ; 

'  In  like  manner  Amorlte  is  used  (xlviii.  22)  in  a  general  sense  of  the 
Hivites  (xxxiv.  2). 

*  Observations  on  Divers  Passages  of  Scripture,  vol.  ii.,  p.  501. 


424  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ESAU 

and  it  evidently  was  sometimes  done  ancientl3^"  And 
lie  cites  in  the  same  connection  the  following  from  Sir 
John  Chardin :  "The  reason  why  the  Israelites  and 
other  Eastern  people  are  called  by  different  names  is  be- 
cause they  frequently  change  them,  as  they  change  in 
point  of  age,  condition,  or  religion.  This  custom  has  con- 
tinued to  our  times  in  the  East,  and  is  generally  prac- 
tised upon  changing  religions  ;  and  it  is  pretty  common 
upon  changing  condition.  The  Persians  have  preserved 
this  custom  more  than  any  other  nation.  I  have  seen 
many  governors  of  provinces  among  them  assume  new 
names  with  their  new  dignity.  But  the  example  of  the 
reigning  king  of  Persia  (he  began  his  reign  in  1667,  and 
died  in  1694)  is  more  remarkable :  the  first  years  of  the 
reign  of  this  prince  having  been  unhappy,  on  account  of 
wars  and  famine  in  many  provinces,  his  counsellors  per- 
suaded him  that  the  name  he  had  till  then  borne  was 
fatal,  and  that  the  fortune  of  the  empire  would  not  be 
changed  till  he  changed  that  name.  This  was  done  ;  the 
prince  .was  crowned  again  under  the  name  of  Soliman  ; 
all  the  seals,  all  the  coins,  that  had  the  name  of  Sefi  were 
broken,  the  same  as  if  the  king  had  been  dead,  and  an- 
other had  taken  possession.  The  loomen  more  frequently 
change  their  names  than  the  men.  .  .  .  Women  that 
marry  again,  or  let  themselves  out  anew,  and  slaves, 
commonly  alter  their  names  upon  these  changes."  Esau's 
wives  at  their  marriage  left  their  own  tribes  to  become 
the  heads  of  a  new  race ;  is  it  strange  that  they  should 
adopt  new  names  ? 

Another  alleged  inconsistency  relates  to  the  separation 
of  Esau  and  Jacob.  According  to  xxxii.  4  (E.  V.,  ver.  3) 
Esau  was  already  in  Seir  before  Jacob's  return  from  Pad- 
dan-aram.  But  xxxvi.  6,  7  states  that  he  removed  from 
Canaan  from  the  face  of  Jacob,  because  there  was  not 
room  for  both  of  them  to  dwell  together.     There  is  no 


ESAU'ti   DEaCENDANTS    (CH.    XXXVI.)  425 

real  discrepancy  here,  however.  Esau  with  a  band  of 
men  had  a  provisional  residence  in  Mount  Seir  before 
Jacob's  return  home  ;  but  it  is  nowhere  said  that  he  had 
entirely  abandoned  Canaan  and  removed  his  family  and 
effects  from  it.  Though  he  had  fixed  his  head-quarters 
for  a  season  in  Seir,  he  had  no  disposition  to  yield 
Canaan  or  to  surrender  his  right  to  the  paternal  inherit- 
ance to  Jacob,  who  had  defrauded  him  of  his  father's 
blessing.  Hence  he  came  out  with  an  armed  force  to 
obstruct  his  return  to  the  land  of  his  fathers.  It  was 
only  after  Jacob's  fervent  supplication  (xxxii.  10  sqq,,  E. 
V,,  vs,  9  sqq.),  and  his  importunate  wrestling  for  a  bless- 
ing on  the  bank  of  the  Jabbok  (vs.  25  sqq.),  that  Esau's 
deadly  hate  (xxvii.  41)  was  by  divine  influence  changed 
to  fraternal  love  (xxxiii.  1).  He  thenceforth  abandoned 
his  claim  to  the  possession  of  Canaan,  and  peaceably 
withdrew  with  all  that  he  had  from  the  land.  He  re- 
turned again  at  the  interment  of  his  father  (xxxv.  29),  as 
Ishmael  had  done  at  the  burying  of  Abraham  (xxv.  9) ; 
and  then  the  final  separation  of  the  brothers  took  place. 

NO  ANACHKONISM 

An  alleged  anachronism  yet  remains  to  be  considered. 
It  is  confidently  affirmed  that  Moses  could  not  possibly 
have  written  vs.  31-39.  Verse  31  reads,  "  And  these  are 
the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  before  there 
reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel." 

The  first  impression  upon  a  cursory  reading  of  this 
verse  might  naturally  be  that  it  was  written  after  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  monarchy  in  Israel.  Wellhausen  con- 
tends that  vs.  31-39  could  not  possibly  have  been  writ- 
ten by  P,  "  since  this  document  keeps  much  too  strictly 
to  its  archaistic  stand-point  for  us  to  attribute  to  it  the 
unconcealed  reference  to  the  period  of  the  Israelitish 


426  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   ESAU 

kings  in  ver.  31."  We  so  far  agree  with  him  as  to  think 
it  incredible  that  the  writer  of  the  Pentateuch  should  in 
this  one  instance  have  departed  so  far  from  the  Mosaic 
stand-point,  which  he  elsewhere  steadfastly  maintains 
throughout,  as  to  have  introduced  here  a  passage  which 
must  be  dated  as  late  as  the  time  of  Saul  or  David.  And 
in  fact  a  careful  examination  of  the  passage  reveals  sev- 
eral particulars  calculated  to  modify  the  first  cursory 
impression.  Eight  kings  of  Edom  are  named  in  these 
verses  who  are  nowhere  else  mentioned  in  the  history ; 
and  we  have  no  data  for  determining  just  when  they 
reigned.  No  king  is  succeeded  by  his  own  son.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  to  have  been  an  elective,  not  an 
hereditary,  monarchy.  The  death  of  the  first  seven  kings 
is  mentioned,  but  not  that  of  the  eighth,  whence  it  is 
probable  that  he  was  still  reigning  when  this  passage 
was  written.  This  probability  is  enhanced  by  the  con- 
sideration that  the  writer  seems  to  be  better  acquainted 
with  the  domestic  relations  of  this  king  than  of  his  pre- 
decessors ;  at  least  he  mentions  the  name  and  lineage  of 
his  wife,  which  is  not  done  in  the  case  of  any  other. 

There  was  a  kingdom  in  Edom  in  the  time  of  David  (1 
Kin.  xi.  14-17),  and  reference  is  made  to  Hadad  "  of  the 
king's  seed  in  Edom."  He  cannot  be  identified  with 
Hadad  (ver.  36),  or  with  Hadar  (ver.  39)  of  the  passage 
before  us,  as  he  seems  never  to  have  reached  the  throne ; 
or  if  he  did,  it  must  have  been  after  the  beginning  of  Sol- 
omon's reign,  so  that  he  was  not  one  who  reigned  before 
there  was  any  king  in  Israel.  Moreover,  the  expression 
used  shows  that  the  succession  to  the  throne  was  then 
hereditary.  The  kingdom  consequently  is  not  that  which 
is  described  in  the  verses  now  under  discussion ;  it  was 
on  a  different  basis. 

There  was  also  a  king  in  Edom  in  the  time  of  Moses 
(Num.  XX.  14  ;  of.  Judg.  xi.  17),  as  well  as  in  the  kindred 


ESAtj's   DESCENDANTS   (CH.   XXXVI.)  427 

nations  of  Moab  (Num.  xxii.  4),  Miclian  (xxxi.  8),  and 
Amalek  (xxiv.  7 ;  cf.  1  Sam.  xv.  20).  We  read  also  at 
that  time  of  dukes  in  Edom  (Ex.  xv.  15),  showing  that  the 
kingdom  was  superinduced  upon  and  coexisted  with  the 
dukedoms  that  are  likewise  spoken  of  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  • 
this  is  a  coincidence  worth  noting.  From  the  death  of 
Moses  to  the  choice  of  Saul  as  king  were  three  hundred 
and  fifty-seven  years  (1  Kin.  vi.  1 ;  2  Sam.  v.  4 ;  Acts 
xiii.  21 ;  Num.  xiv.  33).  Now,  even  supposing  the  king 
in  the  Mosaic  age  to  have  been  the  first  that  ruled  in 
Edom,  we  must  assign  to  each  of  his  successors  a  reign 
of  fifty-one  j^ears  to  fill  up  the  interval  to  the  time  of 
Saul,  which  is  quite  insupposable  ;  and  the  more  so  as 
elective  monarchs  would  in  all  probability  be  chosen  in 
matui-e  age,  and  their  reigus  be  on  the  average  briefer  in 
consequence.  This  list  of  kings  does  not,  therefore,  ex- 
tend to  the  reign  of  Saul.  It  cannot,  consequently,  have 
been  written  after  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  in 
Israel,  and  intended  to  enumerate  all  the  kings  that  had 
reigned  in  Edom  up  to  that  time. 

Furthermore,  the  fourth  of  these  kings,  it  is  said  (ver. 
35),  "smote  Midian  in  the  field  of  Moab."  Midian  was 
in  alliance  with  Moab  in  the  time  of  Moses  (Num.  xxii. 
4,  7)  ;  we  are  not  informed  that  they  were  so  subse- 
quently. Israel  occupied  the  plains  of  Moab  before 
crossing  the  Jordan  (Num.  xxxi.  12),  and  were  thence- 
forward adjacent  to  its  territory.  This  event  was  in  all 
probabiHty  pre-Mosaic. 

Edom  was  so  powerful  and  warlike  a  people  in  the 
Mosaic  age  that  Israel  did  not  vertture  to  force  a  passage 
through  their  territory  (Num.  xx.  20,  21).  This  seems  to 
imply  that  the  kingdom  had  not  been  recently  estab- 
Hshed.  The  same  thing  may  be  inferred  from  the  men- 
tion of  "  the  king's  highway  "  (xx.  17). 

These  various  considerations  conspire  to  make  it  ex- 


428  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   ESAU 

tremely  probable  that  several  of  these  kings,  at  least, 
were  pre-Mosaic  ;  why  not  all  ?  Why  may  not  the  last 
of  the  series  be  the  one  with  whom  Moses  had  dealings, 
and  this  be  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  series  is 
carried  no  further  ?  Esau's  final  settlement  in  Seir  took 
place  before  the  death  of  Isaac.  And  Isaac  died  ten 
years  before  Jacob  went  down  to  Egypt  (Gen.  xxxv.  28  ; 
XXV.  26  ;  xlvii.  9),  and  hence  four  hundred  and  forty 
years  before  the  exodus  of  the  children  of  Israel  (Ex.  xii. 
41),  or  four  hundred  and  eighty  before  the  death  of 
Moses.  This  affords  ample  time  for  the  establishment 
of  the  kingdom  in  Edom,  and  the  reign  of  eight  kings. 
There  is  absolutely  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
or  in  any  known  fact,  for  affirming  that  any  one  of  these 
kings  was  post-Mosaic. 

But  could  Moses  have  used  the  exj)ressions  in  ver. 
31  ?  '  Why  not  ?  It  had  been  explicitly  promised  to 
Abraham  (xvii.  6)  and  to  Jacob  (xxxv.  11)  that  kings 
should  arise  from  their  seed.  Balaam  foretells  the 
exalted  dignity  of  the  kingdom  in  Israel  (Num.  xxiv.  7). 
Moses  anticipates  that  when  the  people  were  settled  in 
Canaan  they  would  wish  to  set  a  king  over  them  like  all 
the  nations  around  them  ;  and  though  he  did  not  enjoin 
the  establishment  of  a  kingdom,  he  gave  regulations  re- 
specting it  (Deut.  xvii.  14  sqq.).  That  was  the  common 
usage  of  the  nations.  It  was  the  prevalent  conception  of 
a  well-ordered  and  properly  administered  government. 
Now  Jacob  inherited  the  blessing,  and  Esau  did  not.  It 
had  been  foretold  that  Esau,  the  elder,  sliould  serve  Jacob, 

'  Astruc  urges  substantially  the  same  arguments  that  are  presented 
above  to  prove  that  the  kings  of  Edom  here  spoken  of  were  pre-Mosaic, 
but  he  supposes  that  the  king  in  Israel  referred  to  was  God,  who  be- 
came their  king  by  formal  covenant  with  them  at  Sinai  (Ex.  xix.),  and 
is  so  called  Deut.  xxxiii.  5  (cf.  Judg.  viii,  23,  23  ;  1  Sam.  viii.  7,  xii, 
12)  ;  or  else  Moses  or  Joshua,  who,  though  they  are  not  called  kings, 
were  yet  invested  with  supreme  authority  under  God  himself. 


ESAU'S   DESCENDANTS    (CII.    XXXYI.)  429 

the  younger  ;  that  the  people  descended  from  the  latter 
should  be  stronger  than  the  people  descended  from  the 
former  (xxv.  23) ;  that  Jacob  should  be  lord  over  Esau 
(xxvii.  29).  Yet  Esau  had  been  a  compact,  thoroughly 
organized  kingdom  for  eight  successive  reigns,  while  Is- 
rael had  just  escaped  from  bondage,  had  attained  to  no 
such  organization,  had  not  yet  had  a  single  king.  How 
could  Moses  fail  to  note  so  remarkable  an  occurrence  ? 
And  why  was  it  not  perfectly  natural  for  him  to  have 
made  precisely  the  statement  which  we  here  find  ? 

Dillmaun  says  that  if  the  last  of  these  kings  was  a 
contemporary  of  Moses,  the  writer  could  not  have  said, 
"  These  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom, 
before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Is- 
rael ;  "  he  could  only  have  said,  "  before  the  children  of 
Israel  went  up  out  of  Egypt,"  or  "  before  they  conquered 
Canaan."  This  is  of  weight  only  against  Dillmann's  own 
position.  If  this  line  of  kings  simply  extended  to  Moses's 
time,  as  we  have  seen  that  there  is  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve, no  post-Mosaic  writer,  and  especially  no  one  living 
in  or  after  the  time  of  Saul,  could  have  made  the  reign 
of  kings  in  Israel  the  terminus  ad  quern.  No  one  but 
Moses  himself,  or  a  wi-iter  in  the  Mosaic  age,  contrasting 
the  facts  thus  far  developed  in  the  Hue  of  Esau  and  Ja- 
cob with  what  had  been  predicted  respecting  them,  could 
have  used  the  language  here  employed.  Instead  of  in- 
dicating an  anachronism,  the  form  of  expression  thus 
points  directly  to  Moses  as  its  author. 

While  the  critics  disagree  respecting  the  authorship  of 
this  chapter  in  general,  they  are  imanimous  in  assigning 
vs.  6-8  to  P,  and  in  claiming  that  the  characteristic  ex- 
pressions of  those  verses,  which  are  the  ones  commonly 
used  of  patriarchal  migrations,  are  those  of  P.  How  lit- 
tle reason  they  have  for  this  has  already  been  shown  un- 
der ch.  xii.  4b,  5,  Marks  of  P  (3),  No.  2  and  5. 


X 

THE  GENEEATIONS   OF   JACOB   (XXXVII.   2-L.) 

The  first  tliirty-six  chapters  of  Genesis  have  now  been 
examined,  and  no  justification  has  yet  been  found  for  the 
critical  hypothesis  that  the  book  is  compounded  from 
pre-existing  documents.  We  proceed  to  inquire  whether 
this  hypothesis  has  any  better  support  in  the  next  and 
only  remaining  section  of  this  book. 

THE  UNITY   OF  PLAN 

The  divisive  hypothesis  encounters  here  in  full  meas- 
ure the  same  insuperable  difficulty  which  meets  it 
throughout  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  particularly  in  the 
life  of  Abraham,  and  the  early  history  of  Jacob.  The 
unity  of  plan  and  purpose  which  pervades  the  whole,  so 
that  every  constituent  part  has  its  place  and  its  function, 
and  nothing  can  be  severed  from  it  without  evident  mu- 
tilation, positively  forbids  its  being  rent  asunder  in  the 
manner  proposed  by  the  critics.  If  ever  a  literary  prod- 
uct bore  upon  its  face  the  evidence  of  its  oneness,  this 
is  true  of  the  exquisite  and  touching  story  of  Joseph, 
which  is  told  with  such  admirable  simplicity  and  a  pathos 
that  is  unsurpassed,  all  the  incidents  being  grouped  with 
the  most  telling  effect,  until  in  the  supreme  crisis  the 
final  disclosure  is  made.  No  such  high  work  of  art  was 
ever  produced  by  piecing  together  selected  fragments  of 
diverse  origin. 

The  critics  tell  us  that  the  apparent  unity  is  due  to 


THE   UNITY   OF   PLAN    (CH.    XXXVII.  2-L.)        431 

tlie  skill  of  the  redactor.  But  the  suggestion  is  alto- 
gether impracticable.  A  writer  who  gathers  his  mate- 
rials from  various  sources  may  elaborate  them  in  his  own 
mind,  and  so  give  unity  to  his  composition.  But  a  re- 
dactor who  limits  himself  to  piecing  together  extracts 
culled  from  different  works  by  distinct  authors,  varying 
in  conceptions,  method,  and  design,  can  by  no  possibility 
produce  anything  but  patchwork,  which  will  betray  itself 
by  evident  seams,  mutilated  figures,  and  want  of  harmony 
in  the  pattern.  No  such  incongruities  can  be  detected 
in  the  section  before  us  by  the  most  searching  examina- 
tion. All  that  the  critics  affect  to  discover  vanish  upon 
a  fair  and  candid  inspection. 

Moreover,  the  story  of  Joseph,  complete  as  it  is  in  it- 
self, is  but  one  link  in  a  uniform  and  connected  chain, 
and  is  of  the  same  general  pattern  with  those  that  pre- 
cede it.  With  striking  individual  diversities,  both  of 
character  and  experience,  the  lives  of  the  several  patri- 
archs are,  nevertheless,  cast  in  the  same  general  mould. 
Divine  revelations  are  made  to  Joseph  at  the  outset,  fore- 
casting his  future  (xxxvii.  5  sqq.),  as  to  Abraham  (xii.  1 
sqq.),  and  to  Jacob  (xxviii,  11  sqq.).  Each  was  sent  away 
from  his  paternal  home  and  subjected  to  a  series  of  trials, 
issuing  both  in  discipline  of  character  and  in  ultimate 
prosperity  and  exaltation.  And  the  story  of  Joseph  fits 
precisely  into  its  place  in  the  general  scheme,  which  it  is 
the  purpose  of  Genesis  to  trace,  by  which  God  was  pre- 
paring and  training  a  people  for  himself.  By  a  series  of 
marvellous  providences,  as  the  writer  does  not  fail  to 
point  out  (xlv.  5,  7  ;  1.  20),  the  chosen  seed  was  preserved 
from  extinction  and  located  within  the  great  empire  of 
Egypt,  as  had  been  already  foreshown  to  Abraham 
(xv.  13  sqq.),  that  they  might  unfold  into  a  nation  ready, 
when  the  proper  time  should  arrive,  to  be  transplanted 
into  Canaan. 


432  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

These  broad  and  general  features,  in  wliicli  the  same 
constructive  mind  is  discernible  throughout,  are  lost 
sight  of  by  critics  who  occupy  themselves  with  petty  de- 
tails, sp3'ing  out  doublets  in  every  emphatic  repetition  or 
in  the  similar  features  of  distinct  events,  finding  occa- 
sions of  offence  in  every  transition  or  digression,  however 
natural  and  appropriate,  and  creating  variance  by  setting 
separate  parts  of  the  same  transaction  in  antagonism,  as 
though  each  were  exclusive  of  the  other,  when  in  fact 
they  belong  together  and  are  perfectly  consistent ;  or  by 
dislocating  phrases  and  paragraphs  from  their  true  con- 
nection and  imposing  upon  them  senses  foreign  to  their 
obvious  intent.  These  artifices  are  perpetually  resorted 
to  by  the  critics,  and  constitute,  in  fact,  their  stock  argu- 
ments, just  because  they  refuse  to  apprehend  the  author's 
plan,  and  to  judge  of  the  fitness  of  every  particular  from 
his  point  of  view,  but  insist  instead  upon  estimating 
everything  from  some  self -devised  standard  of  their  own. 

Vater,  to  whom  the  Pentateuch  was  a  collection  of 
heterogeneous  fragments,  and  who  was  ready  to  go  to 
any  length  in  the  work  of  disintegi'ation,  nevertheless 
says  ^  that  the  history  of  Joseph  is  "  a  connected  whole,  to 
rend  it  asunder  would  be  to  do  violence  to  the  narrative." 
And  Tuch,  who  finds  a  double  narrative  throughout  the 
rest  of  Genesis,  declares  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  so 
here.  "  Several  wrong  courses  have  been  ventured  upon," 
he  says,2  "  in  respect  to  the  narrator  of  the  life  of  Joseph. 
Some  relying  upon  insecure  or  misunderstood  criteria 
have  sought  to  extort  two  divergent  accounts.  Others 
have  held  that  the  documents  have  been  so  worked  over 
that  it  is  impracticable  to  separate  them  with  any  degree 
of  certainty.  But  we  must  insist  upon  the  close  connec- 
tion of  the  whole  recital,  in  which  one  thing  carries  an- 

'  Commentar  iiber  den  Pentateuch,  i. ,  p.  290  ;  iii.,  p.  435. 
■^  Commentar  liber  die  Genesis   2d  edit.,  p.  417. 


THE    UNITY   OF   PLAN   (CH,    XXXVII.   2-L.)        433 

other  along  with  it,  and  recognize  in  that  which  is  con- 
tinuously written  the  work  of  one  author."  And  he  adds  ^ 
respecting  ch.  xxxvii. :  "  This  section  in  particular  has 
been  remarkably  maltreated  by  the  divisive  document 
and  redactor  hypotheses  of  Ilgen  and  Gramberg  without 
bringing  forth  anything  but  an  arbitrary  piece  of  mosaic 
work,  which  is  shattered  by  the  inner  consistency  and 
connection  of  the  passage  itself."  The  posthumous  edi- 
tor of  Tuch's  "  Commentary  "  interposes  the  caveat  that 
"  since  Hupfeld  and  Boehmer  the  unity  of  the  history 
of  Joseph  can  no  longer  be  maintained."  But  the  fact 
is  that  no  inconsistencies  have  since  been  pretended  in 
this  narrative  which  were  not  already  pointed  out  by 
Ilgen  and  Gramberg.  Whether  the  later  attempts  to  es- 
tablish duplicate  accounts  have  been  more  successful 
than  those  ^hich  Tuch  so  pointedly  condemns,  we  shall 
inquire  presently. 

The  urgent  motive  which  impels  the  most  recent  crit- 
ics to  split  the  history  of  Joseph  asunder  at  all  hazards 
is  thus  frankly  stated  by  AVellhausen  :  ^  "  The  principal 
source  for  this  last  section  of  Genesis  is  JE.  It  is  to  be 
presumed  that  this  work  is  here  as  elsewhere  com- 
pounded of  J  and  E.  Our  previous  results  urge  to  this 
conclusion,  and  would  be  seriously  shaken  if  this  were 
not  demonstrable.  I  hold,  therefore,  that  the  attempt 
'  to  dismember  the  flowing  narrative  of  Joseph  into 
sources '  is  not  a  failure,^  but  is  as  necessary  as  the  de- 
composition of  Genesis  in  general." 

'  Commentar  iiber  die  Genesis,  2d  edit.,  p.  424. 

'  Composition  des  Hexateuclis,  p.  52. 

^The  allusion  is  to  Noldeke  (Untersuchungen,  p.  32),  who  says  "the 
attempt  to  dismember  this  flowing  narrative  into  sources  is  a  veritable 
failure." 


98 


434  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 


LACK   OF  CONTINUITY   IN  THE   DOCUMENTS 

If  distinct  documents  have  been  combined  in  this 
portion  of  Genesis,  the  critical  analysis  which  disen- 
tangles them  and  restores  each  to  its  original  separate- 
ness  might  be  exj^ected  to  bring  forth  orderly  narratives, 
purged  of  interpolations  and  dislocations,  with  the  true 
connection  restored  and  a  consequent  gain  to  each  in 
significance,  harmony,  and  clearness.  Instead  of  this 
there  is  nothing  to  show  for  P,  J,  or  E  but  mutilated 
fragments,  which  yield  no  continuous  or  intelligible  nar- 
rative, but  require  for  their  explanation  and  to  fill  their 
lacunae  precisely  those  passages  which  the  critical  pro- 
cess has  rent  from  them.  We  are  expected  to  assume, 
with  no  other  evidence  than  that  the  exigencies  of  the 
hypothesis  require  it,  that  these  P,  J,  and  E  fragments 
represent  what  were  originally  three  complete  docu- 
ments, but  that  the  missing  parts  were  removed  by  R. 

"  We  now  come,"  as  Noldeke  says,  "  to  the  most  dis- 
tressing gap  in  the  whole  of  P."  And  he  undertakes  to 
account  for  it  by  the  gratuitous  assumption  that  P's 
account  was  so  decidedly  contradictory  to  that  of  the 
other  documents  that  E  was  obliged  to  omit  it  alto- 
gether. In  fact  P  is  almost  as  absolute  a  blank  in  what 
follows  as  it  was  in  regard  to  Jacob's  abode  in  Paddan- 
aram. 

THE   DIVINE   NAMES 

The  divine  names  here  give  no  aid  in  the  matter  of 
critical  division.  Jehovah  occurs  in  but  three  of  these 
fourteen  chapters,  and  in  only  eight  verses,  each  time 
with  evident  appropriateness.  It  is  found  in  connec- 
tion with  God's  dealings  with  the  chosen  race,  on  the 
one  hand  his  punitive  righteousness   toward   offenders 


DICTION   AND   STYLE    (CH.    XXXVII.   2-L.)  436 

(xxxviii.  7,  10),  and  on  the  other  his  gracious  care  of 
Joseph,  assurances  of  which  are  heaped  together  at  the 
beginning  of  his  servitude  in  Egypt  (xxxix.  2,  3,  5,  21, 
23) ;  after  this  it  appears  but  once,  viz.,  in  a  pious  ejacu- 
lation of  the  dying  patriarch  Jacob  (xlix.  18).  Elohiin 
occurs  repeatedly  in  these  chapters,  and  in  a  manner 
which  Hupfeld  ("  Quellen,"  p.  178)  confesses  to  be  em- 
barrassing to  the  critics  as  contravening  the  requirements 
of  their  hypothesis.  The  predominance  of  this  name  in 
this  section  cannot  be  traced  to  the  habit  of  a  particular 
writer,  since  it  is  supposed  to  be  about  equally  shared 
between  J  and  E.  It  is  regulated  by  the  proprieties  of 
the  situation,  with  which  it  is  always  in  accord.  There 
are  three  considerations  which  explain  the  matter.  Elo- 
him  is  used — 

1.  When  Egyptians  speak  or  are  spoken  to,  as  xli.  16, 
38 ;  and  Joseph  is  classed  as  an  Egyptian  while  he  was 
unknown  to  his  brethren  (xlii.  18  ;  xliv.  16). 

2.  Where  God's  general  providential  orderings  are  re- 
ferred to  (xli.  51,  52) ;  and  especially  where  they  are 
explicitly  or  implicitly  contrasted  with  the  purposes  of 
men  (xlv.  5-9 ;  1.  19,  20). 

3.  Where  there  is  an  appeal  to  God's  almighty  power 
(xlvi.  2-4) ; '  in  this  case  El  Shaddai  may  be  substituted 
(xliii.  14;  xlviii.  3,  4). 

DICTION  AND    STYLE 

Neither  is  the  partition  conducted  on  the  basis  of  such 
literary  criteria  as  diction  and  style.  Only  a  few  scat- 
tered scraps,  amounting  in  all  to  about  twenty-five 
verses,^  are  assigned  to  P,  such  as  can  be  severed  from 

iViz..  xxxvii.  2a;  xli.  46a;  xlvi.  6.7;  xlvii.  o-ll,  27b.  28;  xlviii.  3-6 
(7?) ;  xlix.  la,  2Sb-33;  1.  12,  13,  with  a  possible  addition  of  xlvi.  8-27, 
the  enumeratiou  oi!  Jacob's  descendants,  about  which  the  critics  are 
not  agreed. 


436  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

the  main  bod}'  of  the  narrative  as  entering  least  into  its 
general  flow  and  texture.  The  mass  of  the  matter,  as 
has  uniformly  been  the  case  since  ch.  xxiii.,  is  divided 
between  J  and  E,  which  by  confession  of  the  critics 
can  only  be  distinguished  with  the  greatest  difficulty,^ 
Whenever  it  is  impossible  to  effect  a  partition  it  is 
claimed  that  R  must  have  blended  the  documents  inex- 
tricably together.  In  other  places  a  few  disconnected 
clauses  are  sundered  from  a  J  section  and  given  to  E,  or 
from  an  E  section  and  given  to  J ;  and  these  are  claimed 
as  evidence  of  two  separate  narratives.  At  other  times 
arbitrary  grounds  of  distinction  are  invented,  such  as 
assigning  to  E  all  dreams  that  are  mentioned,  or  differ- 
ent incidents  of  the  narrative  are  parcelled  between 
them,  as  though  they  were  varying  accounts  of  the  same 
thing,  whereas  they  are  distinct  items  in  a  complete  and 
harmonious  whole.  Genealogical  tables,  dates,  removals, 
deaths,  and  legal  transactions  or  ritual  enactments  are  as 
a  rule  given  to  P.  Historical  narratives  are  attributed 
to  J  and  E,  and  are  divided  between  them  not  by  any 
definite  criteria  of  style,  but  by  the  artifice  of  imaginary 
doublets  or  arbitrary  distinctions,  leaving  numerous 
breaks  and  unfilled  gaps  in  their  train.  And  in  this 
halting   manner   the   attempt  is  made   to   establish  the 

'  Thus  Kayser  says  (Das  Vorexilische  Bucli,  p.  28)  :  "  The  little  frag- 
ments of  the  Elohist  (P)  inserted  in  Genesis  from  ch.  xxiii.  onward  all 
refer  to  keeping  the  race  elected  in  Abraham  pure  from  admixture 
with  the  Canaanitish  tribes,  and  its  exclusive  right  to  the  possession  of 
Canaan,  which  is  confirmed  both  by  narratives  of  acquisition  of  the  soil 
and  of  the  departure  of  the  side  lines  of  Ishmael  and  Esau.  Sparse  as 
they  have  thus  far  been  found,  they  become  still  more  rare  in  what 
follows  The  attempt  of  Tuch  and  Knobel,  based  on  the  supplement 
hypothesis,  to  find  in  the  history  of  Jacob's  descendants,  especially  of 
Joseph,  a  radical  portion  of  the  so-called  primary  document  P,  has  been 
shown  to  be  untenable,  since  Ilupfeld  has  given  the  proof  that  the  pas- 
sages referred  to  the  first  Elohist  by  those  scholars  belong  to  the  second 
Elohist,  worked  over  by,  and  inseparable  from,  the  Jehovist. " 


JOSEPH   SOLD   INTO   EGYPT   (CH.    XXXVII.  2-36)       437 

existence  of  what  the  critics  would  have  us  regard  as 
separate  and  continuous  documents.  The  methoel  itself 
is  sufficient  to  condemn  the  whole  process  and  to  show 
that  the  results  are  altogether  factitious.  It  could  be 
applied  with  equal  plausibility  to  any  composition,  what- 
ever the  evidence  of  its  unity. 

JOSEPH   SOLD   INTO  EGYPT — (CH.   XXXYII.   2-36) 
VARIANCE   AMONG   CRITICS 

No  pretext  for  division  is  here  afforded  by  Elohim  or 
Jehovah,  since  no  name  of  God  occurs  in  this  chapter. 
Astruc,  Eichhorn,  and  Tuch  regard  it  as  a  unit,  and  re- 
fer it  without  abatement  to  P.  It  has,  however,  been  va- 
riously divided,  and  it  affords  a  good  illustration  of  the 
ease  with  which  a  naiTative  embracing  several  incidents 
can  be  partitioned  at  the  pleasure  of  the  critic.^     Ilgen 

■  This  chapter  is  partitioned  by  different  critics  in  the  following  man- 
ner : 

Ilgen  :  P,  vs.  2,  14  (omit  "and  he  came  to  Shechem"),  18b,  c,  21- 
23a,  b,  24,  25a,  28a,  b,  d,  29-31,  32b,  c,  34,  36.  E,  vs.  3-13,  14  (last 
clause),  15-18a,  19,  20,  25b-27,  23,  28c,  32,  33,  35  ;  xxxix.  1. 

Gramberg:  P,  vs.  2,  18,  21  (for  "  Reuben  "  read  "  Judah"),  25-27, 
28c,  d  :  xxxix.  1.  J,  vs.  5-11,  19,  20,  22,  24,  28a,  b,  29,  30,  36.  Com- 
mon to  both,  vs.  3,  4,  12-17,  23,  31-35. 

Knobel:  P,  vs.  2-4,  23-27,  28c,  d,  31,  32a.  Rechtsbuch,  vs.  5-22a, 
28a,  b,  32b-36.     J,  vs.  22b,  29,  30. 

Boehmer  :  J,  vs.  2a,  3,  4,  11a,  18c,  25b-27,  28b,  32a,  c,  d,  33a,  d, 
34,  35a,  b.  E,  vs.  5-10,  lib,  12  (omit  "  in  Shechem  "),  14a,  b,  17c, 
18a,  b,  19-21,  22a,  23-25a,  28a,  29-31,  32b,  33b,  c,  35c,  36.  R,  vs.  2b, 
5b,  8b,  12  (in  Shechem),  13,  14c,  15-1 7a,  b,  d,  22b,  23c,  28c,  36  (Poti- 
phar). 

Hupfeld  :  J,  vs.  25b-27,  28c.     E,  vs.  2-25a,  28a,  b,  d-36. 

Schrader  :  J,  vs.  23-27,  28c,  d,  31-35.  E,  vs.  2b-22,  28a,  b,  29,  30, 
36. 

Wellhausen  :  J,  vs.  12,  13a,  b,  14-17,  19-21  (for  "  Reuben "  read 
"Judah"),  23,  24,  25-27,  28c,  31-36.  E,  vs.  2b-ll,  13c,  18,22,28a, 
b,  d-30. 


438  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

partitions  it  between  the  two  Elohists  with  the  following 
result :  P  uses  the  name  Jacob  (vs.  1,  34),  represents 
Joseph  as  habitually  with  the  flocks  (ver.  2),  wearing  an 
ordinary  coat  (vs.  23a,  32b,  33),  incurring  the  hatred  of 
his  brothers  by  bringing  an  evil  report  of  them  to  his 
father  (ver.  2).  Reuben  as  the  first-born  takes  a  promi- 
nent part,  counsels  not  to  kill  Joseph,  and  is  afterward 
inconsolable  (vs.  21,  22,  29,  30).  Midianites  take  Joseph 
from  the  pit  without  the  knowledge  of  his  brothers  (ver, 
28),  and  sell  him  into  Egypt  to  Potiphar,  an  officer  of 
Pharaoh  (ver.  36).  E,  on  the  contrary,  uses  the  name 
Israel  (vs.  3,  13),  and  represents  Joseph  as  the  son  of 
his  father's  old  age  (ver.  3),  unacquainted  with  the  flocks 
(vs.  15,  16),  wearing  a  coat  of  many  colors  (or  rather  a 
long  garment  with  sleeves)  (vs.  3,  23b,  32a),  hated  by  his 
brothers  because  of  his  distinguished  dress  and  his  fa- 
ther's partiality  for  him  (ver.  4),  and  hated  still  more  for 
his  dreams  (vs.  5-11).  Judah  acts  the  part  of  the  first- 
born (ver.  26) ;  his  brothers  on  his  advice  sell  Joseph  to 

Dillmann,  1st  edition:  J,  vs.  3,  4,  23c,  25-27,  28c,  some  expressions 
in  32-35.     J  and  E  mixed,  vs.  23,  32,  34,  35.     E,  the  remainder. 

Dillmann,  3d  edition:  J,  vs.  2b,  3,  4,  18b,  21  (for  "Reuben"  read 
"  Judah  "),  23*-27,  28c,  31*-35*.  J  and  E  mixed,  vs.  23,  31,  32  ("  coat " 
and  "  long  tunic"  in  combination),  vs.  34,  35  (34b  and  35b  doublets). 
R,  vs.  5b,  8b,  Israel,  Shecliem,  and  Hebron  in  14,  slight  change  in  18. 
In  ver.  9,  "  and  told  it  to  his  brethren,"  is  an  interpolation.  E,  rest 
of  the  chapter. 

Kittell :  J,  vs.  2b,  3,  4a,  11a,  12,  13a,  14-18,  21  (for  "  Reuben  'read 
"Judah"),  23c,  25b-27,  28c,  32,  33  (in  great  part),  35  (except  the  last 
part).  E,  vs.  2a,  c,  4b-10,  lib,  13b,  19,  20  (except  "and  cast  him  into 
one  of  the  pits"),  23,  23a,  b,  24,  25a,  28a,  b,  d,  29-31,  parts  of  32  and 
33,  34,  the  last  three  words  of  35,  36. 

Kautzsch  :  J,  vs.  3,  4,  21  (for  "Reuben  "  read  "  Judah  "),  23c,  25b- 
27,  28c,  32,  33,  35.  E,  vs.  2c,  5a,  6-11,  19,  20,  22,  28a,  b,  d-31,  32 
(first  verb),  34,  36.  JE,  vs.  2a,  12-18,  23a,  b,  24,  25a.  R,  vs.  2b,  5b, 
8b,  10a. 

Driver  :  J,  vs.  12-21,  25-27,  28c,  31-35.  E,  vs.  2b-ll,  22-24,  28a, 
b,  d-30,  36. 


JOSEPH   SOLD   INTO   EGYPT   (ClI.   XXXVII.  3-36)        439 

the  Ishmaelites  (vs.  27,  28b).  His  father  sa3's  tliat  he 
will  go  dowu  to  Slieol  mourning  for  his  son  (ver.  35). 
Joseph  is  sold  to  some  Egyptian  whose  name  is  not 
given  (xxxix.  1  ;  "  Potiphar,  an  officer  of  Pharaoh,  cap- 
tain of  the  guard,"  is  ejected  from  this  verse  as  an  inter- 
[)olation). 

De  Wette  ^  charges  Ilgen  with  being  arbitrary  and  go- 
ing too  far,  but  agrees  with  him  to  a  certain  extent.  He 
fancies  that  there  are  inconsistencies  in  the  narrative, 
which  can  only  be  relieved  by  the  assumption  that  two 
variant  accounts  have  been  blended.  After  the  adoption 
of  Keuben's  proposal  (ver.  23)  to  cast  Joseph  into  a 
pit  instead  of  killing  him,  Judah  says  (ver.  26),  "  What 
profit  is  it  if  we  slay  our  brother  ?  "  as  if  they  still  in- 
tended to  kill  him.  Reuben  makes  no  objection  to  Ju- 
dah's  proposal  to  sell  Joseph  ;  and  yet  he  is  afterward 
distressed  at  not  finding  Joseph  in  the  pit,  though  there 
had  been  no  mention  of  his  absence  when  the  sale  was 
effected.  This  indicates  that  different  stories  are  here 
confused  together.  According  to  one,  Joseph  was  cast 
at  Reuben's  suggestion  into  a  pit,  and  subsequently 
drawn  out  and  carried  off  by  Midianite  merchants  who 
were  passing.  According  to  the  other,  Joseph's  brothers 
had  conspired  to  kill  him,  but  sold  him  instead  to  Ish- 
maelites. 

Gramberg  distributes  the  chapter  between  P  and  J, 
certain  paragraphs  being  common  to  both.  Both  tell 
that  Joseph  was  his  father's  favorite,  and  had  been  pre- 
sented by  him  with  a  long  robe,  which  excited  his  broth- 
ers' hostility.  Both  tell  that  Joseph  was  sent  by  his 
father  from  Hebron  to  Shechem  to  find  his  brothers,  who 
were  with  the  flocks.  And  both  describe  the  deception 
l^ractised  upon  Jacob,  and  his  inconsolable  grief  at  the 
loss  of  Joseph.     P  tells  of  Judah  and  the  sale  to  the 

'  Beitrage  zur  Einleituug  iu  das  Alte  Testament,  ii. ,  pp.  142  sqq. 


440  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

Islimaelites,  aucl  J  of  Keuben  aud  Josepli  being  carried 
off  by  the  MidiaDites  ;  which  is  the  reverse  of  Ilgen's  as- 
signment, who  makes  P  tell  of  the  latter  and  E  of  the 
former. 

Kuobel,  the  latest  and  most  minutely  elaborate  of  the 
supi^lementary  critics,  recognizes  in  Genesis  only  an 
Elohist  Primary  Document,  P,  which  gives  a  compara- 
tively trustworthy  statement  of  facts  ;  and  a  Jehovist 
Eeviser,  J,  who  incorporates  with  the  preceding  the  leg- 
endary embellishments  of  later  times.  P's  account  is 
that  Joseph's  reporting  his  brothers'  misdeeds  and  his 
father's  partiality  for  him  so  exasperated  his  brothers, 
with  whom  he  was  feeding  the  flocks,  that  they  threw 
him  into  a  pit,  and  then  at  Judah's  instance  sold  him  to 
Ishmaelites,  who  took  him  to  Egypt ;  after  this  they  dip 
Joseph's  coat  in  blood  and  send  it  to  their  father.  J 
adds  from  some  other  authority  the  prophetic  di'eams, 
Joseph's  being  sent  by  his  father  in  quest  of  his  broth- 
ers, their  conspiring  against  him  as  they  saw  him  ap- 
proaching, Reuben's  proposal  not  to  shed  his  blood  but 
to  put  him  in  a  pit  (meaning,  in  the  intent  of  the  author- 
ity from  which  this  was  drawn,  to  let  him  perish  there ; 
but,  by  inserting  ver.  22b,  J  converts  this  into  a  purpose 
to  restore  him  to  his  father  ;  and  he  further  introduces 
in  the  same  vein  (vs.  29,  30)  Reuben's  subsequent  dis- 
tress at  not  finding  Joseph  in  the  pit).  J  makes  no  men- 
tion of  the  adoption  of  Reuben's  proposal ;  but  this  is  to 
be  presumed,  as  Midiauites  pass,  who  draw  Joseph  out 
of  the  pit  aud  sell  him  to  Potiphar.  Finally,  Jacob's 
grief  is  depicted  at  the  sight  of  his  son's  coat,  which  was 
sent  to  him. 

Bohmer  divides  the  chapter  between  J,  E,  and  R,  as- 
signing nothiug  whatever  to  P.  Even  the  title  of  the 
sectioli  (ver.  2a),  "  These  are  the  generations  of  Jacob," 
which  the  critics  commonly  claim  for  P,  though  most  un- 


JOSEPH    SOLD   INTO   EGYPT    (ClI.   XXXVII.  3   86)        441 

reasouably,  is  given  by  liirn  to  J.  A  large  sliare  is  imputed 
to  K,,  iu  order  to  cover  the  halting-places  of  the  analysis,  or 
to  carry  the  principle  of  subdivision  consistently  through. 
As  three  reasons  are  assigned  for  the  hostility  of  Joseph's 
brothers,  viz.,  his  evil  report  of  their  conduct,  his  father's 
partiality,  and  his  dreams,  and  the  last  two  are  divided 
between  J  and  E,  the  first  (ver.  2b)  is  given  to  K.  As 
each  document  is  supposed  to  speak  of  but  one  ground 
of  hostility,  this  could  not  be  represented  as  augmenting 
what  had  not  been  before  alluded  to ;  hence,  vs.  5b,  8b, 
must  have  been  introduced  by  E.  As  E  never  speaks 
of  Shechem,^  and  J  would  not  have  the  sons  of  Jacob 
feed  their  flocks  where  they  had  committed  such  a  deed 
of  violence  ~  (xxxiv.  25-27) ;  moreover,  as  Hebron  was 
the  abode  of  the  patriarchs  in  P  (xxiii.  2,  xxxv.  27),  but 
not  in  J  or  E,  vs.  13,  14c  and  the  words  "  in  Shechem  " 
(ver.  12)  must  belong  to  R.  For  a  like  reason  the  de- 
signation of  Dothan  as  the  scene  of  the  transaction  that 
follows  is  not  referable  to  J  or  E,  hence  vs.  15-17  are 
given  to  R,  except  the  single  clause  in  ver.  17c,  "  and  Jo- 
seph went  after  his  brethren."     R  inserted  ver.  22b  to 

'  Bohmer  assigns  xxxiii.  18  to  J,  and  xxxv.  4  to  R. 

^  Matthew  Poole  remarked  upon  this  :  "  One  may  rather  wonder  that 
he  durst  venture  his  sons  and  his  cattle  there,  where  that  barbarous 
massacre  had  been  committed.  But  those  pastures  being  his  own  (xxxiii. 
19)  and  convenient  for  his  use,  he  did  commit  himself  and  them  to  that 
same  good  Providence  which  watched  over  him  then  and  ever  since, 
and  still  kept  up  that  terror  which  then  he  sent  upon  them.  Besides. 
Jacob's  sons  and  servants  made  a  considerable  company,  and  the  men 
of  Shechem  being  universally  slain,  others  were  not  very  forward  to 
revenge  their  quarrel,  where  there  was  any  hazard  to  themselves  in 
such  an  enterprise. "  It  may  be  added  that  in  the  time  which  had 
since  elapsed  Jacob  had  had  opportunity  to  acquaint  himself  with  the 
temper  of  the  surrounding  population  and  to  re-establish  peaceful  rela- 
tions with  them.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  suppose  with  Astruc  (Con- 
jectures, p.  401)  that  the  affair  of  Dinah  took  place  after  Joseph  had 
been  sold  into  Egypt. 


442  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

make  it  appear  tliat  Reuben  intended  to  restore  Joseph 
to  his  father,  which  was  not  his  intention  in  the  original 
story,  Ver.  23c  must  also  be  referred  to  him,  since  E 
could  not  mention  "  the  long  robe,"  of  which  only  J  had 
spoken  (ver.  3)  ;  also  ver.  28c,  because  it  duplicates  xxxix. 
1.  Finally,  the  name  "  Potiphar  "  is  struck  out  of  ver.  36 
as  an  insertion  by  K.  This  is  with  the  view  of  creating 
a  discrepancy  between  this  verse  and  xxxix.  1.  "  Poti- 
phar" is  erased  from  the  former,  and  "an  officer  of  Pha- 
raoh, captain  of  the  guard,"  is  erased  from  the  latter,  and 
then  it  is  claimed  that  these  verses  contain  variant  rep- 
resentations of  the  person  to  whom  Joseph  was  sold. 
Other  critics  accomplish  the  same  end  by  retaining 
"  Potiphar,"  in  ver.  36,  and  erasing  it  in  xxxix.  1.  All 
which  shows  how  easy  it  is  to  reverse  a  writer's  positive 
statements,  and  create  divergences  where  there  are  none 
by  simply  making  free  with  the  text. 

Hupfeld  ("  Quellen,"  pp.  67  sqq.)  reproduces  the  view 
of  De  Wette  by  giving  the  entire  chapter  to  E,  except  vs. 
25b-27,  28c.  The  narrative  is  thus  resolved  into  two 
accounts  differing  in  three  points,  viz.,  the  name  of  the 
brother  who  saved  Joseph's  life,  how  he  came  to  Egypt, 
and  the  person  who  bought  him.  According  to  E  Reu- 
ben proposed  to  put  him  in  a  pit,  whence  he  was  se- 
cretly drawn  out  by  passing  Midianites,  who  sold  him  to 
Potiphar,  captain  of  the  guard.  According  to  J,  at  Ju- 
dah's  suggestion  Joseph's  brothers  sell  him  to  a  caravan 
of  Ishmaelites,  of  whom  he  was  bought  by  an  unnamed 
Egyptian  (xxxix.  1).  It  is  claimed  that  each  account  is 
complete  and  separable ;  only  in  ver.  28  they  are  so  com- 
bined that  the  verbs  are  referred  to  wrong  subjects.  The 
clause,  "  and  sold  Joseph  to  the  Ishmaelites  for  twenty 
pieces  of  silver,"  is  to  be  sundered  from  the  rest  of  the 
verse  aud  attached  to  ver.  27.  Verse  28  will  then  read, 
"  and  there  passed  by  Midianites,  merchantmen  ;    aud 


JOSEPH   SOLD   INTO   EGYPT   (CH.    XXXVII.   2-36)       443 

they  (the  Midianites)  drew  and  lifted  up  Joseph  out  of 
the  pit.  And  they  brought  Joseph  into  Egypt."  This 
connects  back  with  ver.  25a ;  it  occurred  while  Joseph's 
brothers  were  sitting  together  taking  bread.  It  does  not 
appear  from  J  that  Joseph  was  put  into  a  pit  at  all. 
Schrader  enlarges  J's  portion  by  adding  to  it  (vs.  23,  24, 
31-35),  with  the  eliect  of  transferring  the  statement  of 
Joseph's  being  put  in  the  pit,  and  of  his  father's  grief, 
from  E  to  J.  This  still  leaves  the  whole  of  the  narra- 
tive prior  to  ver.  23  with  E,  and  nothing  in  J  respecting 
the  relation  of  Joseph  to  his  brothers,  until  suddenly, 
without  a  word  of  explanation,  they  are  found  deliberat- 
ing whether  to  kill  him  or  to  sell  him  as  a  slave. 

Wellhausen  is  too  acute  a  critic  and  too  ingenious  in 
discovering  doublets  to  suffer  this  state  of  things  to 
continue.  He  remarks  :  ^  "  Verses  12-24  are  preparatory 
to  vs.  25  sqq.,  and  are  indispensable  for  both  E  and  J. 
To  be  sure,  no  certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  this 
alone  as  to  its  composite  character,  but  a  presumption  is 
created  in  its  favor  which  is  confirmed  by  actual  traces 
of  its  being  double."  Acting  upon  this  presumption  he 
sets  himself  to  discover  the  traces.  It  seems  to  him  that 
"  Here  am  I,"  is  not  the  proper  answer  to  what  Israel 
says  to  Joseph  (ver.  13) ;  and  that  ver.  18  does  not  fit  in 
between  vs.  17  and  19.  "They  saw  him  afar  off"  im- 
plies that  he  had  not  yet  "  found  them  ;  "  and  "  they  con- 
spired against  him  to  slay  him,"  is  a  parallel  to  ver.  20. 
Verses  21  and  22  are  also  doublets,  only  instead  of  "Eeu- 
ben,"  in  ver.  21  (an  old  suggestion  of  Gramberg's)  we 
should  read  "  Judah,"  whose  proposal  is  to  cast  him  into 
the  pit  (ver.  20),  to  perish,  without  killing  him  them- 
selves, while  Reuben  (ver.  22)  has  the  secret  purpose  of 
rescuing  him.  From  these  premises  he  concludes  that 
while  J  is  the  principal  narrator  in  this  paragraph,  as 
•  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  p.  53, 


444  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

sbowu  by  Israel  (ver.  13),  Hebron  (ver.  14),  and  verbal 
suffixes  passim,  nevertheless  vs.  13c,  14a,  18,  22,  and  parts 
of  vs.  23,  24,  in  which  in'ii  repeatedly  occurs  instead  of  a 
suffix  attached  to  the  verb,  belong  to  E  and  represent  his 
parallel  narrative,  which  has  only  been  preserved  in  this 
fragmentary  way. 

In  vs.  2b-ll  he  is  less  successful  in  discovering  traces 
of  twofold  authorship.  These  verses  are  attributed  to 
E,  who  deals  more  largely  with  dreams  than  J,  and  who, 
moreover,  has  a^:]?!  ^  son  of  his  old  age  (ver.  3  as  xxi.  2) 
against  D^D;pT  lb;i  child  of  his  old  age  (xliv.  20  J) ;  nshs 
D^SS  long  tunic  (ver.  3  as  vs.  23,  32)  against  n:n3  coat,  J, 
and  especially  has  ini5  constantly  (vs.  4,  5,  8,'9)';  instead 
of  a  verbal  suffix,  in  marked  contrast  with  vs.  12  sqq. 
"  "With  the  sons  of  Bilhah,"  etc.  (ver.  2)  does  not  accord 
accurately  with  the  preceding  clause,  and  "  he  told  it  to 
his  father  and  to  his  brethren  "  (J  ver.  10)  deviates  from 
the  statement  in  ver.  9 ;  but  he  thinks  these  to  be  addi- 
tions by  a  later  hand  and  not  from  J.  He  has,  however, 
one  resource ;  vs.  19,  20,  J,  speak  of  Joseph's  dreams, 
consequently  J  must  have  given  some  account  of  them, 
though  it  has  not  been  preserved. 

Dillmann  proves  in  this  instance  to  have  had  sharper 
eyes  than  Wellhausen,  and  has  found  the  desired  doub- 
lets where  the  latter  could  discover  none.  To  be  sure, 
he  unceremoniously  sets  aside  Wellhausen's  criteria. 
He  gives  vs.  19,  20,  to  E  (not  J)  in  spite  of  repeated  ver- 
bal suffixes  which  he  will  not  recognize  here  as  a  dis- 
criminating mark,  in  spite,  too,  of  nT^n  which  occurs 
xxiv.  65  J,  and  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and 
accordingly  he  does  not  allow  the  inference  that  J  gave  a 
parallel  account  of  the  dreams.  But  taking  the  hint 
from  Bohmer  he  finds  the  coveted  parallel  by  setting 
vs.  3,  4,  as  J's  explanation  of  the  hatred  of  Joseph,  over 
against  that  of  E  in  vs.  5-11.     According  to  J,  his  broth- 


JOSEPH   SOLD   INTO   EGYPT   (CH.    XXXVII.   3-36)       445 

ers  hated  him  because  he  was  his  father's  favorite  ;  ac- 
cording to  E,  because  of  his  ambitious  dreams.^  J  says 
"  they  hated  him  "  (ver.  4)  ^iHiW^^ ;  E  "  they  envied  him  " 
(ver.  11)  ^Npp^'l.^  To  be  sui'e  SSTO  hated  occurs  twice  over 
in  the  E  paragraph  (vs.  5,  8),  and  with  explicit  reference 
to  ver.  4,  clearly  indicating  the  identity  of  the  writer.  But 
if  anyone  imagines  that  such  a  trifle  as  this  can  disturb 
a  critic's  conclusions  he  is  much  mistaken.  Dillmann 
blandly  says  that  the  unwelcome  clauses  were  inserted 
by  E,  and  lo !  they  disappear  at  once.  The  word  of  a 
critic  is  equal  to  the  wand  of  a  magician.  When  he  says 
that  ver.  5b  is  inappropriate  where  it  stands  because  the 
actual  recital  of  the  dream  follows  (vs.  6,  7),  Delitzsch 
reminds  him  that  such  anticipatory  announcements  are 
quite  usual,  and  cites  ii.  8  ;  he  might  have  cited  ver.  28d 
from  this  very  chapter.  He  says  the  same  of  ver.  8b, 
because  only  one  dream  had  yet  been  told,  forgetting  the 
numerous  examples  of  the  generic  use  of  the  plural.' 
D^?)?T-ia  and  D^SB  nphs  (ver.  3),  which  Wellhausen  ad- 
duces as  characteristic  of  E,  become  ^\dth  Dillmann  in- 
dicative of  J.  Knobel  remarks  that  ver.  7  and  xxvi.  12 
are  the  only  two  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  in  which 
the  patriarchs  are  spoken  of  as  cultivating  the  soil,  or 

'  Dillmann  explains  the  allusion  to  Joseph's  mother  (xxxvii.  10), 
whose  death  is  mentioned  xxxv.  19,  by  his  favorite  method  of  trans- 
position, assuming  that  the  statement  of  her  death  in  E  really  occurred 
after  this  time  ;  but  R,  for  the  sake  of  harmonizing  with  P,  inserted  it 
sooner.  But  it  remains  to  be  shown  that  Leah  could  not  be  referred  to 
in  this  manner  after  Rachel's  death. 

^  Kitteli  reverses  this  by  connecting  ver.  4b  with  2c,  and  ver.  11a 
with  4a,  and  so  making  E  speak  of  Joseph's  brothers  hating  him  for  his 
talebearing  and  his  dreams,  and  J  of  their  envying  him  on  account  of 
his  father's  partiality.  This  shows  how  easy  it  is  for  a  critic  by  adroitly 
shifting  the  lines  of  partition  to  alter  the  connection  of  clauses  and 
modify  their  meaning. 

'  Cf.  Gen.  viii.  4 ;  xiii.  13  ;  xxi.  7  ;  Num.  xxvi.  8 ;  Judg.  sii.  7  ;  1 
Sam.  xvii.  43;   Job  xvii.  1. 


446  THE   GEIfERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

otherwise  than  nomads  ;  they  should,  therefore,  be  as- 
cribed to  the  same  hand.  The  critics  lay  stress  upon  a 
point  like  this  when  it  suits  them ;  otherwise  they  qui- 
etly ignore  it.  Dillmann  gives  ver.  7  to  E  ;  xxvi.  12 
to  J. 

Dillmann  further  finds  a  foothold  for  J  in  ver.  2,  by 
insisting  that  ver.  2a  and  2b  are  mutually  exclusive,  and 
that  the  former  should  be  given  to  P  or  E,  and  the  latter 
to  J.  Delitzsch  cannot  see  why,  in  point  of  matter,  they 
may  not  have  proceeded  from  the  same  pen,  while  in 
grammatical  construction  i.  2,  3  ofi'ei's  a  precise  parallel. 

Critics  are  divided  in  opinion  as  to  the  share  which  is 
to  be  allowed  P  in  xxxvii.  2.  By  common  consent  they 
assign  him  the  initial  words,  "  These  are  the  generations 
of  Jacob,"  i.e.,  an  account  of  Jacob's  family  from  the  time 
that  he  was  recognized  as  the  independent  head  of  the 
chosen  race ;  and  thus  we  have  a  P  title  to  a  J  and  E 
section.  The  majority  also  refer  to  him  the  following 
clause,  "Joseph  was  seventeen  years  old,"  with  or  with- 
out the  rest  of  the  sentence,  which  then  becomes  utterly 
unmeaning,  and  is  out  of  connection  with  anything  what- 
ever. The  only  reason  for  thus  destroying  its  sense  by 
severing  it  from  the  narrative  to  which  it  belongs  is  the 
critical  assumption  that  all  dates  must  be  attributed  to  P. 
But  Noldeke  revolts  at  the  rigorous  enforcement  of  this 
rule.  He  says,  "  The  mention  of  the  youthful  age  of 
Joseph  suits  very  well  in  the  whole  connection  as  well  as 
that  of  his  manly  age  (xli.  46),  and  of  the  advanced  age 
which  he  attained  (1.  26).  These  numbers  also  have  no 
connection  whatever  with  the  chronological  system  of 
the  Primary  Document  (P)  any  more  than  the  twenty 
years'  abode  in  Mesopotamia  (xxxi.  38,  41)."  Well- 
hausen  gives  no  positive  opinion  on  the  subject.  Dill- 
mann assigned  this  clause  to  E  in  his  first  edition,  but 
in  his  second  and  third  hesitates  between  P  and  E. 


JOSEPH   SOLD    INTO   EGYPT   (CII.    XXXVII.   2-36)      447 

In  the  first  four  editions  of  liis  Genesis  Delitzscli 
could  find  no  evidence  of  a  duplicate  narrative  in  ch. 
xxxvii.  In  his  last  edition  he  changed  his  mind,  though 
he  was  still  unable  to  accept  Dillmaun's  keen  analysis, 
which  seemed  to  him  to  go  "  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
knowable."  He  ventures  no  further  than  to  assign  vs. 
28a,  b,  29,  30,  to  E,  and  ver.  28c,  d  to  J,  and  to  claim 
that  thenceforward  the  narrative  of  E  and  J  are  in  agTee- 
ment,  while  the  text  has  prevailingly  the  coloring  of  J, 
only  "  the  Midianites "  in  ver.  36  are  a  sure  indication 
of  E. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  proceed  with  the  recital  of 
other  proposed  partitions,  which  are  sufliciently  indicated 
in  a  previous  note.  The  critics  have  shown  how  vari- 
ously the  same  narrative  may  be  divided.  And  it  must 
be  a  very  intractable  material  indeed  that  can  resist  the 
persistent  application  of  such  methods  as  they  freely 
employ.  The  fact  that  different  versions  of  a  story  can 
be  constructed  out  of  a  narrative  by  an  ingenious  parti- 
tion of  its  constituent  elements  by  no  means  proves  its 
composite  character.  They  may  be  purely  subjective, 
destitute  of  any  historical  basis,  and  of  no  more  value 
than  any  clever  trick  at  cross-reading. 

GROUNDS   OF   PARTITION 

"Wellhausen  admits  that  "  the  connection  of  the  matter 
in  ch.  xxxvii.  is  certainly  such  that  it  would  scarcely  give 
occasion  for  separating  it  into  two  threads,  were  it  not 
for  the  conclusion  (vs.  25-36)."  Here  it  is  alleged  that 
there  are  certain  glaring  inconsistencies,  which  cannot 
be  otherwise  accounted  for  than  as  the  fusing  together  of 
discordant  narratives.  Four  discrepancies  are  charged, 
which  lie  at  the  basis  of  every  attempt  to  partition  the 
chapter. 


448  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

1.  Verses  21,  22,  it  was  Reuben,  but  ver.  26  it  was 
Jiidab,  who  persuaded  the  brothers  not  to  put  Joseph  to 
death. 

2.  Verses  25,  27,  28,  xxxix.  1,  Ishmaelites,  but  vs. 
28,  36,  Midianites,  took  Joseph  and  brought  him  to 
Egypt. 

3.  According  to  different  clauses  of  ver.  28,  Joseph  was 
carried  off  secretly  without  the  knowledge  of  his  brothers, 
or  was  sold  by  them. 

4.  Verse  36,  he  was  sold  to  Potiphar,  but  xxxix.  1 
(purged  of  interpolations),  to  an  unnamed  Egyptian. 

These  imaginary  difficulties  are  of  easy  solution. 

As  to  the  first.  It  surely  is  not  sui-prising  that  two  of 
the  brothers  should  have  taken  an  active  part  in  the  con- 
sultations respecting  Joseph,  nor  that  the  same  two 
should  be  prominent  in  the  subsequent  course  of  the 
transactions.  Reuben,  as  the  eldest,  had  special  respon- 
sibilities and  would  naturally  be  forward  to  express  his 
mind  ;  while  Judah's  superior  force  of  character,  like 
that  of  Peter  among  the  ajDostles,  made  him  prompt  to 
take  the  lead,  and  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  what  is 
attributed  to  them.  Reuben  persuaded  them  not  to  kill 
Joseph,  but  to  cast  him  alive  into  a  pit,  cherishing  the 
purpose,  which  he  did  not  divulge  to  them,  to  restore 
him  to  his  father.  They  accede  to  his  proposal  intend- 
ing to  let  Joseph  die  in  the  pit,  or  to  kill  him  at  some 
future  time.  To  this  state  of  mind  Judah  addresses  him- 
self (ver.  26).  The  absence  of  Reuben,  when  Joseph  was 
sold,  is  not  expressly  stated,  but  is  plainly  enough  im- 
plied in  his  despair  and  grief  at  his  brother's  disappear- 
ance. The  reply  which  his  brothers  made  is  not  re- 
corded ;  but  there  is  no  implication  that  they  were  as 
ignorant  as  he  of  what  had  become  of  Joseph.  That 
they  had  a  guilt  in  the  matter  which  he  did  not  share  is 
distinctly  intimated  (xlii.  22) ;  he  must,  therefore,  have 


JOSEPH   SOLD   INTO   EGYPT    (CH,    XXXVII.  2-36)        449 

been  fully  aware  that  they  did  something  more  than  put 
Joseph  in  the  pit  at  his  suggestion. 

As  to  the  second  point.  Ishmaelites  iu  the  strict  and 
proper  sense  were  a  distinct  tribe  from  the  Midianites, 
and  were  of  different  though  related  origin.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  familiar  fact,  which  we  have  had  occasion  to  observe 
before,  that  tribal  names  are  not  always  used  with  defi- 
nite exactness  (cf.  xxxvi.  2  ;  see  p.  422).  And  there  is  ex- 
plicit evidence  that  Ishmaelites  was  used  in  a  wide  sense 
to  include  Midianites  (Judg.  viii.  24 ;  cf .  vii.  1  sqq.  ;  viii. 
1  sqq.).  Dillmann's  objection  that  this  belonged  to  a 
later  period  comes  Avith  a  bad  grace  from  one  who  places 
the  earliest  Pentateuchal  documents  centuiies  after  Gid- 
eon. If  the  invading  army  refeiTed  to  in  the  passages 
above  cited  could  be  called  indifferently  Midianites  and 
Ishmaelites,  why  not  this  caravan  of  merchants  ?  The 
British  troops  at  the  battle  of  Trenton  in  the  American 
revolution  were  Hessians,  and  might  be  properly  spoken 
of  under  either  designation.  If  a  historian  were  to  use 
these  terms  interchangeably  in  describing  the  engage- 
ment, would  it  foUow  that  variant  accounts  had  been  con- 
fusedly mingled  ?  The  absence  of  the  article  before 
Midianites  (ver.  28)  does  not  imply  that  they  were  dis- 
tinct from  the  Ishmaelites  before  perceived  (vs.  25,  27). 
They  were  recognized  in  the  distance  as  an  Ishmaelite 
caravan,  but  it  was  not  till  they  actually  came  up  to  them 
that  the  Ishmaelites  were  perceived  to  be  specifically  or 
largely  Midianites. 

As  to  the  third  point.  If  the  first  half  of  ver.  28  were 
severed  from  its  connection,  the  words  might  mean  that 
Midianites  drew  Joseph  out  of  the  pit.  But  in  the  con- 
nection in  which  it  stands  such  a  sense  is  simply  im- 
possible. And  the  suggestion  that  E  had  two  statements 
before  him  :  one,  that  Midianites  drew  Joseph  out  of  the 
pit  without  his  brothers'  knowledge  and  carried  him  off 
29 


450  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

to  Egypt ;  the  other,  that  his  brothers  drew  him  from 
the  pit  aucl  sold  him  to  the  Ishmaelites ;  and  that  he 
combined  them  as  we  have  them  now,  is  to  charge  him 
with  inconceivable  stupidity  or  reckless  falsification. 
There  can  be  no  manner  of  doubt  how  the  author  of  the 
book  in  its  present  form  understood  the  transaction. 
There  is  no  possible  suggestion  of  more  than  one  mean- 
ing in  the  words  before  us.  The  invention  of  another 
sense  may  illustrate  the  critic's  wit,  but  it  has  no  more 
merit  than  any  other  perversion  of  an  author's  obvious 
meaning.  And  it  derives  no  warrant  from  si.  15  ;  Joseph 
was  "  stolen  away,"  even  though  his  captors  bought  him 
from  those  who  had  no  right  to  dispose  of  him. 

The  fourth  point  can  be  best  considered  when  we  come 
to  ch.  xxxix. 

MAEKS   OF  J 

Dillmann  does  not  pretend  to  base  the  partition  of  this 
chapter  upon  peculiarities  of  diction.  But  in  the  course 
of  his  exposition  he  notes  the  following  words  as  though 
they  were  confirmatory  of  it  : 

1.  Israel  (ver.  3  J ;  13  E,  modified  by  R)  ;  Jacob  (ver. 
31a),  referred  to  E  solely  on  account  of  this  word. 
Dillmann  undertakes  to  carry  consistently  through  the 
rule  laid  down  by  Wellhausen,^  but  which  through  the 
fault  of  R  he  admits  has  not  been  strictly  observed,"  viz., 
that  after  XXXV.  10  J  calls  the  patriarch  Israel,  E  calls  him 
Jacob,  but  his  sons  the  sons  of  Israel,  while  P  continues 
to  speak  of  Jacob  and  the  sons  of  Jacob.  Whence  re- 
sults this  curious  circumstance  :  P  (xxxv.  10)  and  E  (xxxii. 
29  ;  so  Dillmann)  record  the  change  of  name  to  Israel, 
but  never  use  it ;  J  alone  makes  use  of  it,  and,  according 
to  Dillmann,  he  does  not  record  the  change  at  all.  There 
is  a  singular  inconsistency  likewise  in  the  conduct  of  R. 
'  Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  p.  59.  ^  Ibid. ,  p.  60. 


JOSEPH   SOLD   INTO   EGYPT   (CH.    XXXVlI.  2-30)       451 

P  alone  mentions  the  change  in  the  names  of  Abraham 
and  Sarah  (xvii.  5,  15),  but  E  is  so  concerned  to  have  the 
documents  uniform  in  this  respect  that  from  this  point 
onward  he  alters  these  names  in  J  and  E  to  correspond 
with  P ;  why  does  he  not  here  in  like  manner  bring  P 
and  E  into  correspondence  with  J  ?  And  it  is  only  by 
palpable  forcing  that  Dillmann  succeeds  in  uniforndy  as- 
signing "  Israel "  to  J  (see  e.g.,  xlv.  27,  28  ;  xlvi.  1,  2 ;  xlvii. 
27  ;  xlviii.  2,  8,  10,  11,  14,  21).  Kuenen  admits  that  "  nu- 
merous exceptions  to  the  rule  occur."  At  this  period  of 
transition  when  the  family  is  branching  out  into  the  na- 
tion these  two  names  seem  to  be  used  interchangeably. 
If  any  distinction  whatever  is  intended,  it  is  purely  in 
the  writer's  point  of  view,  who  may  have  used  the  per- 
sonal name  Jacob  when  he  regarded  the  patriarch  strictly 
as  an  individual,  and  the  name  Israel  when  he  thought 
of  him  as  the  head  and  representative  of  the  chosen 
race. 

2.  D^DS  n:h3  long  tunic  (vs.  3,  23,  32).  The  expression 
occm^s  nowhere  in  the  Hexateuch  but  in  this  chapter.  It 
is  alleged  that,  according  to  J,  Joseph  wore  a  "long 
tunic,"  the  special  gift  of  his  father,  but  according  to  E 
only  an  ordinary  "  tunic  "  n:r3.  But  these  expressions 
are  combined  or  used  interchangeably  in  vs.  23,  31,  32 ; 
and  they  can  only  be  referred  to  distinct  documents  by 
partitioning  closely  connected  clauses  in  an  arbitrary 
manner. 

3.  -i^-iin  hring  doivn  (into  Egypt)  (ver.  25) ;  besides  in 
J  xxxix.  1  ;  xliii.  11,  22  ;  xliv.  21 ;  for  which  E  has  j^inn 
hring  (ver.  28) ;  but  no  difference  of  conception  is  im- 
plied by  this  varied  phrase,  since  E  has  repeatedly  ^ni 
go  doion  (into  Egypt)  (xlii.  2b,  3  ;  xlv.  9 ;  xlvi.  3,  4),  as 
J  (xliii.  15,  20  ;  xliv.  23,  26) ;  xlii.  38  is  sundered  from 
its  proper  connection  in  E  and  ascribed  to  J  ;  J  also  has 
iiia  come  (xlvi.  31 ;  xlvii.  1,  4  ;  cf.  xliii.  2). 


452  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

That  varied  forms  of  expression  are  consistent  with 
sameness  of  authorship  b}^  confession  of  the  critics  ap- 
pears from  the  phrase  "  rent  his  clothes,"  in  which  ver. 
29  has  I5i3  and  ver.  34a  has  nb'ais,  yet  both  are  referred 
to  E. 

It  is  also  worth  noting  that  na"!  report  (ver.  2)  is  re- 
ferred by  Dillmann  to  J,  though  it  only  occurs  besides  in 
the  Hexateuch  in  Num.  xiii,  32  ;  xiv.  36,  37  P  ;  also  na"! 
speak  (ver.  4),  w  hich  only  occurs  besides  in  the  Hexateuch, 
with  the  accusative  of  the  person,  in  Num.  xxvi.  3  P  ;  and 
bSDrin  conspire  against  (ver.  18b).  This  verb  occurs  but 
once  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  (Num.  xxv.  18  P),  where 
it  is  in  the  Piel  form.  And  D''T^  "i"':^©  he-goat  (ver.  31)  is 
ascribed  to  E,  though  it  is  only  found  besides  in  the 
Hexateuch  in  the  ritual  law,  Avhere  it  occurs  repeatedly 
and  is  uniformly  ascribed  to  P. 

THE  NAREATIVE  OF  JUDAH  AND  TAMAR  (CH.  XXXVIII.) 
NO  LACK  OF  ORDER 

Because  the  narrative  concerning  Joseph  is  interrupted 
by  ch.  xxxviii.,  De  "Wette  ^  inferred  that  "  we  have  here 
a  compilation,  not  a  continuous  history  by  one  narrator." 
The  charge  of  displacement  has  been  regularly  repeated 
ever  since,  though  obviously  unfounded.  This  chapter 
is  entirely  germane  to  the  subject  treated,  and  it  belongs 
precisely  where  it  is  in  the  author's  plan.  He  is  pro- 
fessedly giving  an  account  of  "  the  generations  of  Jacob  " 
(xxxvii.  2),  not  the  life  of  Joseph  simply,  but  the  history 
of  Jacob's  family.  Joseph  is  necessarily  thrown  into 
prominence,  since  the  events  which  brought  about  the 
removal  of  the  chosen  race  to  Egypt  were  so  largely  con- 
nected with  him.  But  the  incidents  of  this  chapter  have 
their  importance  in  the  constitution  of  Jacob's  family  at 
'  Beitrage,  ii.,  p.  146. 


JUDAH   AND   TAMAK   (CH.    XXXVIIl.)  453 

the  time  of  the  migration  to  Egypt  (xlvi.  12),  and  iu  the 
permanent  tribal  arrangements  of  Israel  (Num.  xxvi.  19 
sqq.),  as  explanatory  of  the  origin  of  the  tribal  families  of 
Juclah.  The  writer  conducts  Joseph  to  Egypt,  where  he 
is  sold  as  a  slave.  There  he  leaves  him  for  a  while  until 
these  facts  in  Judah's  family  are  related,  when  he  re- 
sumes the  thread  of  Joseph's  narrative  precisely  where 
he  left  off,  and  proceeds  as  before.  It  is  just  the  method 
that  the  best  writers  pursue  in  similar  circumstances.  So 
far  from  suggesting  confusion  or  disarrangement,  it  ar- 
gues an  orderly  well-considered  plan. 

Judah  is  said  (ver.  1)  to  have  separated  himself  from 
his  brethren  "  at  that  time,"  that  is  to  say,  shortly  after 
Joseph  was  sold  into  Egypt.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely,  as 
Kurtz  ^  suggests,  that  the  connection  here  is  much  more 
intimate  than  that  of  a  simple  conjunction  in  time.  Un- 
able to  endure  the  sight  of  his  father's  grief  (xxxvii.  35), 
and  goaded  by  Beuben's  reproaches  (cf.  xxxvii.  29,  30 ; 
xlii.  22),  and  the  upbraidings  of  his  own  conscience,  he 
left  his  father's  house,  and  was  thus  led  into  a  marriage 
with  a  Canaanitess.  And  the  providential  retribution 
followed  of  successive  afflictions  in  the  loss  of  his  sons, 
in  return  for  the  grievous  loss  which  he  had  inflicted  upon 
his  father,  and  of  the  deterioration  of  his  character  by 
contact  with  impurity,  and,  as  it  would  also  appear,  with 
idolatry.  The  "  kedesha  "  (vs.  21,  22)  was  one  who  sur- 
rendered herself  in  the  service  of  the  goddess  Astarte. 

The  chronological  objection  which  has  been  made  to 
this  narrative  is  as  futile  as  that  which  is  directed  against 
its  continuity.  If  Judah's  marriage  took  place  soon  after 
Joseph  was  sold,  as  is  expressly  stated,  Judah  was  then 
twenty  years  old,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  all  that  is 
recorded  iu  this  chapter  may  not  have  taken  place  within 
the  twenty-two  years  which  preceded  the  migration  into 
■  Geschichte  des  Alten  Buudes,  i.,  p.  277. 


464  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

Egypt.     It  implies  early  marriages  on  the  part  of  his 
sons,  but  not  incredibly  early. 

NO   ANACHRONISM 

It  has  still  further  been  objected  that  the  Deutero- 
nomic  law  of  levirate  marriages  (Deut.  xxv.  5  sqq.)  is 
here  represented  as  in  force  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs. 
But  there  is  no  anachronism  in  this.  Genesis  shows  that 
in  several  respects  the  laws  of  Moses  embodied,  or  were 
based  upon,  patriarchal  usages ;  while,  nevertheless,  the 
modifications  show  that  there  has  been  no  transference 
to  a  primitive  period  of  the  customs  of  a  later  time.  Un- 
der the  Mosaic  law  one  who  was  disinclined  to  marry  his 
brother's  widow  might  be  formally  released  from  the 
obligation  by  certain  ceremonies  ;  this  is  a  relaxation  of 
the  imperative  requirement  set  forth  in  this  chapter. 
And  the  penalty  of  being  burned,  with  which  Tamar  was 
threatened,  was  not  that  of  the  Mosaic  law,  which  was 
being  put  to  death  by  stoning  (Deut.  xxii.  21-24) ;  in 
this  Dillmann  admits  that  there  is  a  reminiscence  of 
antelegal  times.  The  critics  claim  that  the  Deutero- 
nomic  law  belongs  to  the  reign  of  Josiah,  yet  the  levi- 
rate was  an  established  institution  in  the  days  of  the 
Judges  (Kuth  iv.  10).  How  much  the  argument  from 
silence,  of  which  the  critics  make  so  frequent  use,  amounts 
to  in  this  case,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  such 
marriages,  though  their  existence  is  thus  trebly  vouched 
for,  are  nowhere  alluded  to  in  the  other  Pentateuchal 
codes  nor  in  the  later  history,  until  the  times  of  the  New 
Testament  (Mat.  xxii.  24). 

As  Perez  (ver.  29)  was  the  ancestor  of  king  David 
(Buth  iv.  18-22),  the  late  date  of  this  chapter  has  been 
argued  on  the  assumption  that  it  was  written  to  indicate 
the  origin  of  the  house  of  David.     But  if  this  were  so, 


JUDAH   AND   TAMAR   (CH.    XXXVIII.)  455 

the  writer  must  have  adopted  a  very  imusual  method  of 
flattering  the  pride  of  a  royal  house.  Nor  can  the  Ju- 
daic writer  J,  to  whom  it  is  attributed,  have  composed  it 
in  honor  of  his  tribe.  How  displeasing  it  was  to  na- 
tional vanity  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  Targum  con- 
verts Judah's  wife  from  the  daughter  of  a  Canaanite  into 
that  of  a  merchant,  and  later  legends  make  Tamar  a 
daughter  of  Melchizedek.  These  serious  faults  of  Judah 
are  doubtless  related  with  the  same  design  as  other  re- 
corded blemishes  of  the  patriarchs.  They  show  that  the 
distinction  granted  to  him  among  his  brethren  by  mak- 
ing him  the  father  of  the  royal  tribe  (xlix.  8),  was  due 
not  to  his  personal  merit,  but  to  the  gracious  choice  of 
God.  And  that  the  discipline  to  which  he  was  subjected 
corrected  and  reclaimed  him,  as  the  providential  dealings 
with  Jacob  had  a  like  effect  upon  him,  may  be  inferred 
from  ver.  26,  and  from  his  noble  conduct  subsequently 
(xliv.  16  sqq.). 

Jehovah  occurs  three  times  in  this  chajjter  (vs.  7,  10), 
and  it  is  for  this  reason  ascribed  to  J.  But  the  name  is 
here  used  not  in  compliance  with  the  unmeaning  habit  of 
the  writer,  but  the  requirements  of  the  passage.  Jeho- 
vah as  the  ruler  and  judge  of  his  people  is  especially  of- 
-  fended  by  their  misdeeds.  It  is  Jehovah  accordingly 
who  punished  these  transgressors. 


MARKS  OF  J 


1.  Etymologies.     See  ch.  xvi.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  4. 

2.  "^S^ya  y-i  evil  in  the  eyes  of  (vs.  7,  10).^  See  ch. 
xxi.  1-21,  Marks  of  E,  No.  4. 

1  "Evil  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovali "  (vs.  7,  10)  is  a  standing  phrase,  and 
is  found  sixty  times  besides  in  the  Old  Testameul.  "  Evil  in  the  eyes 
of  Elohim"  occurs  but  once  (1  Chron.  xxi.  7),  and  there  it  is  ha-Elohira 
with  the  article.     "  The  eyes  of  Jehovah"  occurs,  in  addition,  thirty- 


456  THE   GENERATIONS   OV  JACOB 

3.  3?Ti  hioio  (euphemistic)  (ver.  26).  See  cli.  xxiv., 
Marksof  J,  No.  U. 

4.  nisn  recognize  (vs.  25,  26)  ;  besides  in  J  (sxxvii.  32, 
33) ;  in  E  (xxvii.  23  ;  xxxi.  32  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  9.  In  Gen. 
xlii.  7,  8  bis— the  critics  give  ver.  7  to  J,  and  ver.  8  to  E). 

5.  ■$•[  friend  (vs.  12,  20)  ;  besides  in  J  (xi.  3,  7 ;  xv.  10 ; 
xxxi.  49 ;  xliii.  33) ;  in  E  (Ex.  ii.  13  ;  xi.  2 ;  xviii.  7,  16  ; 
xxi.  14,  18,  35  ;  xxii.  6-10, 13,  25,  E.  V.  vs.  7-11,  14,  26  ; 
xxxii.  27 ;  xxxiii.  11)  ;  in  JE  (Ex.  xx.  16,  17) ;  in  Holi- 
ness Laws  (Lev.  xix.  13,  16,  IS  ;  xx.  10) ;  in  Deuteron- 
omy twenty-one  times  ;  Josh.  xx.  5  is  in  a  P  connection, 
but  attributed  to  D. 

6.  nan  come  (particle  of  incitement)  (ver.  16) ;  besides 
in  J  (xi.  3,  4,  7  ;  xlvii.  15,  16 ;  Deut.  xxxii.  3)  ;  in  E 
(Gen.  xxix.  21 ;  xxx.  1  ;  Ex.  i.  10 ;  Josh,  xviii.  4)  ;  in  Ed 
(Deut.  i.  13). 

7.  inbnb  not  (ver.  9).  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  ll!^  "' 

8.  'J3"by"''3  forasmuch  as  (ver.  26).  See  ch.  xviii., 
xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  18. 

9.  S2  I  pray  thee  (vs.  16,  25).  See  ch.  xii.  10-20, 
Marksof  J,  No.  3. 

It  may  be  noted  that  nT!3  here  (vs.  21,  22)  is  referred 
to  J,  though -everywhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch  it  is 
ascribed  to  E  (xlviii.  9a ;  Ex.  xxiv.  14 ;  Num.  xxii.  19 ; 
xxiii.  1) ;  or  to  E  (Num.  xxiii.  29) ;  so  "jin?  to  give  (ver.  9) 
is  assigned  to  J,  though  this  form  of  the  infinitive  occurs 
but  once  besides  (Num.  xx.  21  E).  In  ver.  3  Judali 
names  his  child,  contrary  to  the  rule  of  the  critics  that 
in  J  the  name  is  given  by  the  mother,  and  in  P  by  the 
father  ;  but  see  under  ch.  xvi.,  p.  211. 

onetimes  in  different  connections;  "the  eyes  of  Elohim"  but  twice 
— Num.  xxiii.  27,  in  the  words  of  the  heathen  king  Balak  (who  says 
ha-Elohim,  for  ]ie  means  the  God  of  Israel)  ;  and  Prov.  iii.  4,  where  it 
is  occasioned  >)y  the  contrast  of  God  and  man. 


LIFE   OF   JOSEPH   CONTINUED    (CH.   XXXIX.)      457 

JOSEPH   IS   CAST   INTO   PEISON    (CH.    XXXIX.) 
NO   DISCREPANCIES 

The  critical  partition  is  liere  rested  partly  on  the 
grouucl  of  alleged  discrepancies,  partly  on  that  of  dic- 
tion. It  is  said  that  there  are  varying  representations  of 
the  purchaser  of  Joseph.  Was  he  (xxxvii.  36  E)  Poti- 
pliar,  the  eunuch  or  officer  of  Pharaoh,  captain  of  the 
guard  ?  or  was  he,  as  in  J  (ch.  xxxix.),  simpl}^  an  Egyp- 
tian, whose  name  and  official  position,  if  he  had  any,  are 
unknown  ?  He  is  nowhere  called  Potiphar  in  this  chap- 
ter except  in  ver.  1,  but  only  Joseph's  master  (ver.  3), 
his  Egyptian  master  (ver.  2),  or  the  Egyptian  (ver.  5). 
And  nothing  is  said  outside  of  ver.  1  of  his  standing  in 
any  special  relation  to  Pharaoh  or  holding  any  office 
under  the  king  ;  but  mention  is  made  of  "  all  that  he  had 
in  the  house  and  in  the  field  "  (ver.  5),  implying  that  he 
was  the  owner  of  a  landed  estate.  It  is  hence  infeiTed 
that  the  words  "  Potiphar,  the  eunuch  of  Pharaoh,  cap- 
tain of  the  guard,"  do  not  properly  belong  to  ver.  1,  but 
were  inserted  by  R  to  make  it  correspond  with  xxxvii. 
36  ;  and  that  originally  it  simply  read  "  an  Egyptian," 
words  which,  it  is  alleged,  would  be  superfluous  if  his 
name  and  title  had  previously  been  given.  But  the  ar- 
gument for  this  erasure  is  destitute  of  force.  The  name 
"  Potiphar  "  does  not  occur  in  ch.  xl.,  where  the  critics 
admit  that  he  is  intended  by  Joseph's  master  (ver.  7  ;  see 
also  vs.  3,  4).  Eoyal  body-guards  are  not  always  com- 
posed of  native  troops,  so  that  it  may  not  have  been  a 
matter  of  course  that  their  captain  Avas  an  Egyptian,  nor 
superfluous  to  mention  it.  Knobel  thinks  that  this 
statement  is  made  in  contrast  with  the  Hyksos  origin 
of  the  monarch.     Or,  as  Delitzsch  suggests,  it  may  em- 


458  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

phasize  the  fact  that  Josej^h  was  not  only  a  slave,  but  a 
slave  of  a  foreigner ;  the  Hebrew  servant  (vs.  14,  17)  had 
an  Egyptian  master.  But  no  special  reason  is  needed  to 
justify  the  expression.  Goliath,  "  from  Gath,  from  the 
ranks  of  the  Phihs tines,"  is  further  called  "  the  Philis- 
tine "  (1  Sam.  xvii.  23),  and  throughout  the  chapter  is 
always  denominated  "  the  Philistine,"  without  repeating 
his  name.  That  Potiphar  had  landed  possessions  is 
surely  not  inconsistent  with  his  being  the  captain  of  the 
guard.  That  he  was  married  creates  no  real  difficulty. 
It  is  a  disputed  point  whether  d'''10  is  invariably  to  be 
taken  in  its  strict  and  primary  sense  of  eunuch  ;  there 
are  strong  reasons  for  believing  with  Delitzsch,  Kurtz, 
and  others,  that  it  sometimes  has  simply  the  general 
meaning  of  officer  or  courtier.  However  this  may  be, 
Winer  ^  refers  to  Chardin,  Niebuhr,  and  Burckhardt  in 
proof  of  the  statement  that  "  even  in  the  modern  Orient 
eunuchs  have  sometimes  kept  a  harem  of  their  own." 
There  is  positively  no  ground,  therefore,  for  assuming  an 
interpolation  in  ver.  1.  And  the  explicit  statement  of 
that  verse  annuls  the  critical  allegation  of  variant  stories 
respecting  the  person  of  Joseph's  master.  Moreover,  if 
he  was  a  private  gentleman  and  not  an  officer  of  the  king, 
how  came  it  to  pass  that  his  slave  was  put  in  the  same 
prison  with  the  king's  prisoners,  and  that  for  an  offence 
usually  punished  in  slaves  with  death  ? 

It  is  further  said  that  Joseph's  master  is  in  xxxix.  20, 
21  distinguished  from  the  keeper  of  the  prison  into 
which  Joseph  was  put ;  whereas  in  xl.  3,  4,  7  they  are 
identical.  But  the  confusion  here  charged  upon  the  text 
lies  solely  in  the  mind  of  the  interpreters.  The  narra- 
tive is  perfectly  clear  and  consistent.  The  prison  was  in 
the  house  of  Joseph's  master  (xl.  7),  the  captain  of  the 
guard  (ver.  3),  who  had  supreme  control  over  it  (ver.  4) ; 
J  Biblisches  Realworterbuch,  Art. ,  Verschittene. 


JOSEPH   CAST   INTO   PRISON    (CH.   XXXIX.)  459 

and  this  corresponds  exactly  with  the  representation 
xxxix.  20.  Under  him  there  was  a  subordinate  keeper 
charged  with  its  immediate  OYersight  (xxxix.  21),  who 
was  so  favorably  disposed  toward  Joseph  that  he  com- 
mitted all  the  prisoners  into  his  hands  and  let  him  man- 
age everything  in  the  prison  (vs.  22,  23).  This  is  neither 
identical  with,  nor  contradictory  to,  the  statement  (xl.  4) 
that  the  captain  of  the  guard  (who  is  uniformly  distin- 
guished from  his  subordinate  the  keeper  of  the  prison) 
appointed  Joseph  to  attend  upon  two  prisoners  of  rank 
from  the  royal  household.  It  has  been  said  indeed  that 
he  waited  upon  them  simply  as  Potiphar's  servant,  and 
that  (ch.  xl.)  E  knows  nothing  of  Joseph's  imprisonment 
related  by  J  (ch.  xxxix.)  ;  and,  moreover,  uses  the  term 
^'ntS'Q  ivard  (xl.  3,  4,  as  well  as  xli.  10,  E),  instead  of 
nnbn  JT^a  2^'f'^^on  (xxxix.  20-23).  But  this  result  is  only 
reached  by  expunging  from  the  text  without  the  slightest 
warrant  every  clause  which  directly  declares  the  oppo- 
site (xl.  3b,  5b,  15b;  xU.  14;  cf.  xxxix.  20).  Of  course, 
if  the  critics  are  allowed  to  doctor  the  text  to  suit  them- 
selves, they  can  make  it  say  whatever  they  please. 

THE  DIVINE   NAMES 

Wellhausen  parcels  the  chapter  between  J  and  E, 
giving  vs.  1-5,  20-23  to  the  former  on  account  of  the 
repeated  occurrence  of  Jehovah,  and  vs.  6-19  to  the 
latter  because  of  Elohim  (ver.  9),  and  certain  other  ex- 
pressions alleged  to  be  characteristic  of  E.  The  result 
is  that  Joseph  is  in  E  falsely  accused  of  a  gross  crime, 
but  there  is  no  intimation  how  the  matter  issues  ;  and  in 
J  his  master,  who  had  the  greatest  confidence  in  him 
and  was  richly  blessed  for  his  sake,  puts  him  in  prison 
for  no  cause  whatever.  And  the  partition  is  in  disre- 
gard  of  the   correspondence   and  manifest   allusion  in 


460  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

n;'3  ]np  ib-ffl.''— ilTii!  bbn  ver.  8  to  vs.  4,  5,  also  of  the  like 
construction  of  "liTSS  because,  in  vs.  9  and  23.  Well- 
haiisen,  moreover,  linds  traces  of  E  in  the  J  sections,  and 
of  J  in  the  E  section.  Dillmann  admits  the  indivisible 
character  of  the  chapter  and  refers  the  whole  of  it  to  J ; 
but,  as  the  two  following  chaj^ters  are  given  to  E,  the 
consequence  is  that,  according  to  J,  Joseph  is  put  in 
prison  and  no  information  given  how  or  why  he  was 
subsequently  released ;  the  next  that  we  hear  of  him  he 
is  viceroy  of  Egypt,  with  no  explanation  how  it  came  to 
pass.  The  expressions  commonly  attributed  to  E,  which 
are  found  in  this  chapter,  are  accounted  for  by  Dillmann 
as  insertions  by  R.  This  repeated  occurrence  of  traces 
of  one  document  in  the  limits  of  the  other,  and  the  alle- 
gation that  the  documents  have  in  various  particulars 
been  modified  by  R,  are  simply  confessions  that  the  text 
is  not  what  by  the  hypothesis  of  the  critics  it  ought  to 
be.  Words  and  phrases  held  to  be  characteristic  of  J  or 
E  in  one  place  are  perversely  found  in  the  wrong  docu- 
ment in  another  place.  So  without  revising  and  correct- 
ing their  own  previous  conclusions  and  adjusting  their 
hypothesis  to  the  phenomena  as  they  find  them,  the 
critics  insist  that  the  document  itself  is  wrong,  and  that 
R  is  to  blame  for  it,  the  only  proof  of  which  is  that  it  is 
impossible  to  carry  their  hypothesis  through  otherwise. 
It  is  obvious  that  any  hypothesis,  hoAvever  at  war  with 
the  facts  of  the  case,  could  be  bolstered  up  by  similar 
expedients. 

Jehovah  occurs  eight  times  in  this  chapter  (vs.  2,  3,  5, 
21,  23),  and  Elohim  once  (ver.  9).  Ilgen  gave  the  whole 
chapter  to  E,  and  claimed  that  the  original  reading  was 
Elohim  in  every  case,  and  that  Jehovah  had  been  intro- 
duced by  the  error  of  R  or  of  subsequent  transcribers. 
Gramberg  maintained  that  the  divine  names  are  here  no 
sure  test  of  the  writer,  but  that  the  repetitiousness,  par- 


JOSEPH   CAST  INTO   PRISON    (CII.   XXXIX.)         461 

ticularly  of  vs.  2-6,  12,  13,  20-23,  proves  the  chapter  to  be 
the  work  of  P.  Kueneu^  speaks  of  "  the  wordy  style  and 
constant  repetitions  by  which  this  chapter  is  unfavor- 
ably distinguished  from  the  other  J  pericopes."  Dill- 
mann  gives  it  all  to  J  in  spite  of  Elohim  (ver.  9),  which 
J  could  use  in  such  a  case  as  this  (why  not  then  in  ch. 
XX.  and  in  other  similar  instances?);  in  spite  also  of 
the  repetitiousness,  which  is  held  to  be  a  mark  of  P,  but 
which  here,  and  wherever  else  it  suits  the  purposes  of 
the  critics,  is  explained  by  R's  insertion  of  equivalent 
statements  from  a  supposed  parallel  account  by  E ;  and 
yet  no  reason  is  suggested  why  R  should  so  overload 
these  passages  with  what  are  reckoned  unmeaning  addi- 
tions while  omitting  most  important  portions  of  each 
document  in  turn.  The  fact  is  that  the  divine  names 
are  appropriately  used,  and  the  emphatic  repetitions  are 
precisely  in  place.  Here  at  the  very  outset — first  of 
Joseph's  bondage  and  then  of  his  imprisonment — the 
writer  takes  pains  to  impress  upon  his  readers,  by 
marked  iteration,  that  the  presence  and  favor  of  Jeho- 
vah, the  guardian  of  the  chosen  race,  was  with  Joseph, 
and  gave  him  success  in  his  apparently  forsaken  and 
helpless  condition.  The  unseen  hand,  which  was  guid- 
ing all  in  the  interest  of  his  scheme  of  grace,  is  thus  dis- 
tinctly disclosed  ;  and  this  is  the  key  to  all  that  follows. 
In  ver.  9  Elohim  is  the  proper  word.  Joseph  is  speak- 
ing to  a  Gentile,  to  whom  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  un- 
known ;  and  he  refuses  to  commit  a  crime,  which  would 
be  not  only  an  offence  against  Jehovah  considered  in  the 
light  of  his  special  relation  to  the  chosen  race,  but 
against  God  in  that  general  sense  in  which  he  was  known 
to  all  mankind. 

*Hexateuch,  p.  147. 


462  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 


MARKS   OF  J 

1.  H'lbsn  made  to  prosper  (vs.  2,  3,  23).  See  cli.  xxiv., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  16. 

2.  bb:a  for  the  sake  of  (ver.  5).  See  ch.  xii.  10-20, 
Marks'of  J,  No.  6. 

3.  TJJ'D  from  the  time  that  (ver.  5) ;  besides  in  J  Ex.  iv. 
10 ;  V.  23  (in  E  connection  worked  over  by  R  after  J) ; 
ix,  24  (a  verse  divided  between  J  and  E) ;  also  in  Josh, 
xiv.  10  E,  worked  over  by  E.d  after  D  ;  all  in  tlie  Hexa- 
teuch. 

4.  I'lnin  bring  doiun  (ver.  1).  See  ch.  xxxvii,,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  3. 

5.  ni^Sn  D'''nn'n5  according  to  these  loords  (vs.  17,  19) ; 
in  J  besides,  xxiv.  28,  xliv.  7 ;  all  in  the  Hexateuch. 

The  following  expressions,  regarded  as  characteristic  of 
E,  occur  in  the  J  text  of  this  chapter  :  Yer.  4,  inx  niiCil 
he  ministered  unto  him,  as  xl.  4 ;  Ex.  xxiv.  13  ;  xxxiii.  11  E  ; 
repeatedly  also  in  P ;  ver.  6,  T^ya  nB"iT  IxhTlSp;'  comely 
and  'Well  favored,  as  xxix.  17  E  ;  ver.  7,  n"''ill'ir}  nn^  "'H'^l 
tl^Sin  and  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,  as  xv.  1  ;  xxii. 
1 ;  xi.  1 ;  xlviii.  1 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  29  E  (but  Gen.  xxii.  20  R) ; 
ver.  21,  ii;''2?2  isn  'jn'"'!  gave  him  favor  in  the  eyes  of,  as  Ex. 
iii.  21  ;  xi.  3  E  (but  xii.  36  J). 

There  are  also  expressions  which  by  critical  rules  be- 
long to  P,  e.g.,  bsJ;  yaffi  hearken  unto  (ver.  10),  which  is 
claimed  as  a  P  phrase  in  ch.  xxiii.  (see  ch.  xxiii.,  Marks  of 
P,  No.  10)  ;  and  bSb?  hy,  beside  (vs.  10,  15,  16,  18),  which 
apart  from  this  chapter  and  xii.  3  E  only  occurs  in  the 
Hexateuch  Lev.  i.  16  ;  vi.  3  (E.  V.,  ver.  10) ;  x.  12  P,  and 
twice  in  Deuteronomy. 

Varying  constructions,  as  irr^S'by  ISTlpSlll  (ver.  4)  and 
inina  insi  'T'pBn  (ver.  5),  and  of  nibsn  intransitive  (ver. 
2),  but  transitive  (vs.  3,  23)  would  be  held  to  indicate  dif- 


DREAMS  OF  THE  BUTLER  AND  BAKER  (CH.  XL.)  463 

ferent  writers,  if  it  suited  the  pleasure  of  the  critics  to  do 
so ;  as  it  is  they  are  quietly  ignored. 

DKEAMS  OF  THE  BUTLER  AND  BAKER  (CH.  XL.) 

Tuch  calls  attention  to  the  intimate  connection  between 
this  chapter  and  those  that  precede  and  follow.  Joseph 
is  here  in  prison,  to  which  the  foregoing  narrative  brought 
him.  And  ver.  3,  where  the  officers  who  had  offended 
the  king  were  put  "  into  the  prison,  the  place  where  Jo- 
seph was  bound,"  points  directly  to  xxxix.  20,  where 
Joseph  was  put  "  into  the  prison,  the  place  where  the 
king's  prisoners  were  bound,"  The  statement  that  he 
"  was  stolen  away  out  of  the  land  of  the  Hebrews  "  (ver. 
15)  is  only  explicable  from  xxxvii.  28  sqq.,  that  he  was 
carried  off  by  the  Midianite-Ishmaelites,  to  whom  his  un- 
natural brothers  had  sold  him.  His  assertion  (ver.  15), 
"  here  also  have  I  done  nothing  that  they  should  put  me 
into  the  dungeon,"  is  only  intelligible  from  the  nar- 
rative in  ch.  xxxix.  This  chapter  is  not  only  thus  tied 
to  that  which  goes  before,  but  also  prepares  the  way  for 
ch.  xli.,  where  (ver.  10)  the  imprisonment  of  the  chief 
butler  and  baker  in  the  house  of  the  captain  of  the  guard 
refers  back  to  xl.  1-3  ;  xli.  11-13,  Joseph's  interpreta- 
tion of  their  dreams,  and  their  fulfilment  is  a  brief  sum- 
mary of  xl.  4-22 ;  xli.  14,  bringing  Joseph  out  of  the 
dungeon,  corresponds  to  his  statement  (xl.  15)  that  he  was 
put  into  the  dungeon.  The  chief  butler's  memory  of  his 
fault  (xli.  9)  recalls  the  fact  that  Joseph  had  asked  to  be 
remembered  by  him  when  he  w^as  restored  to  his  former 
position  (xl.  14),  but  the  chief  butler  had  forgotten  him 
(ver.  23).  The  significant  dreams  of  the  butler  and 
baker  (ch.  xl.),  and  those  of  Pharaoh  (ch.  xli.),  in  connec- 
tion with  which  Joseph  figures  so  prominently,  recall 
those   of   his   own   early  childhood   (xxxvii.   5-10),  and 


464  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

plainly  belong  to  the  same  gradually  unfolding  scheme. 
And  Joseph's  modest  disclaimer  of  the  power  of  inter- 
pretation, and  his  ascription  of  it  solely  to  God  (xli.  16), 
simply  repeats  xl.  8. 

NO   DISCBEPANCY 

Yet,  notwithstanding  this  close  relationship  of  this 
chapter  in  all  its  parts  with  the  surrounding  naiTative, 
we  are  told  that  the  principal  gromid  of  the  partition 
here,  by  which  this  chapter  is  given  to  E,  is  a  glaring 
discrepancy  between  the  account  given  by  J  and  that  by 
E.  According  to  J  (ch.  xxxix.  as  expurgated)  Joseph 
was  sold  to  an  unnamed  Egyptian,  and  by  him  put  in 
prison  on  a  false  charge  preferred  by  his  wife.  How  he 
came  to  be  released  and  to  reach  the  high  station  which 
he  subsequently  occupied  in  Egypt  does  not  appear. 
According  to  E  (ch.  xl.  as  expurgated)  Joseph  was  sold 
to  Potiphar,  captain  of  the  guard ;  Pharaoh's  chief  but- 
ler and  baker  were  committed  to  Potiphar's  custody,  and 
kept  under  arrest,  not  in  prison  but  in  his  house.  And 
Joseph,  who  was  not  himself  under  arrest,  but  was  act- 
ing simply  in  the  capacity  of  Potiphar's  servant,  was  ap- 
pointed to  wait  upon  them.  While  doing  so  he  inter- 
preted their  dreams,  which  were  fulfilled  accordingly. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  these  variant  accounts 
are  not  in  the  text,  but  are  purely  the  product  of  the 
critics  themselves.  The  text  must  be  remodelled  in  or- 
der to  produce  them.  We  have  already  seen  how  xxxix. 
1  has  to  be  transformed  in  order  to  make  it  say  that 
Joseph  was  sold,  not  to  Potiphar  but  to  some  nameless 
Egyptian.  It  requires  even  more  serious  tampering  with 
ch.  xl.  to  eliminate  the  repeated  references  to  Joseph's 
imprisonment,  and  the  statement  that  the  chief  butler 
and  baker  were  put  in  the  same  prison  with  him.     Vs. 


DREAMS  OF  THE  BUTLER  AND  BAKEK  (CII.  XL.)  465 

3b,  5b,  15b,  and  a  clause  of  xxxix.  20  (the  place  where 
the  king's  prisoners  were  bound),  as  well  as  of  sli.  14 
(and  the}^  brought  him  hastily  out  of  the  dungeon),  must 
all  be  erased  by  the  critics  before  they  can  get  rid  of  the 
explicit  statements  which  directly  contradict  that  view  of 
the  affair  which  they  undertake  to  obtrude  upon  this 
chapter.  It  is  not  surprising  that  Gramberg,  in  propos- 
ing these  erasures,  expected  his  readers  to  be  surprised 
by  such  a  free  handling  of  the  text  and  perversion  of  its 
meaning. 

The  charge  that  the  clauses  in  question  were  insertions 
by  R  has  no  other  foundation  than  the  desire  to  create 
a  discrepancy,  which  is  impossible  without  removing 
them.  That  the  j)rison  w^as  in  the  house  of  the  captain 
of  the  guard  (ver.  3)  is  in  accordance  with  modern  orien- 
tal usage.  Thus  Chardin  says:  "The  Eastern  prisons 
are  not  public  buildings  erected  for  that  purpose,  but  a 
part  of  the  house  in  Avhich  their  criminal  judges  dwell. 
As  the  governor  and  provost  of  a  town,  or  the  captain  of 
the  watch,  imprison  such  as  are  accused  in  their  own 
houses,  they  set  apart  a  canton  of  them  for  that  purpose, 
when  they  are  put  into  these  offices,  and  choose  for  the 
jailer  the  most  proper  person  they  can  find  of  their  do- 
mestics." '  That  vs.  1,  5  have  "  the  butler  and  the  baker 
of  the  king  of  Egypt,"  while  the  rest  of  the  chapter  has 
"  chief  butler,"  "chief  baker,"  and  "  Pharaoh,"  is  no  good 
reason  for  attributing  the  former  to  R,  unless  on  the  as- 
sumption that  a  writer  cannot  occasionally  vary  his  ex- 
pressions, especially  as  ver.  1  is  indispensable  as  sujoply- 
iug  the  reason  for  ver.  2,  and  the  chief  butler  is  likewise 
simply  called  "  butler  "  (ver.  13),  and  his  office  simply 
"  butlership  "  (ver.  23). 

In  addition  to  the  alleged  variance  between  this  chap- 
ter and  the  preceding,  which  has  already  been  consid- 
'  Havmer's  Observatious,  ii.,  p.  273. 


466  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

ered,  the  following  reasons  are  adduced  for  referring  it 
to  E  :  "  The  dreams,"  since  it  is  aibitrarily  assumed  that 
all  dreams  must  belong  to  E ; ^  "I  was  stolen  away  "  (ver. 
15),  but  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  being  sold  by 
his  brothers,  who  had  no  right  to  dispose  of  him  ;  "  the 
connection  of  ch.  xli.  with  xL,"  which  is  freely  conceded, 
but  involves  no  discrepancy  with,  or  separation  from,  ch. 
xxxix.  No  argument  is  offered  from  language  but  "  the 
avoidance  of  the  verbal  suffix  which  distinguishes  E 
from  J "  (vs.  3,  4,  6,  8,  11,  15,  17,  19) ;  Dillmann  here 
quietly  ignores  the  fact  that  he  refused  to  admit  this  as  a 
criterion  in  ch.  xxxvii.  "  And  it  came  to  pass  after  these 
things,"  which  is  allowed  to  remain  in  ver.  1,  after  the 
rest  of  the  verse  is  erased  as  an  insertion  by  R,  cannot 
be  a  decisive  mark  of  E  in  this  place  after  having  been 
found  in  a  J  section  (xxxix.  7).  It  can  scarcely  be 
thought  that  such  arguments  are  of  any  weight  in  favor 
of  critical  partition. 

NO  ANACHRONISM 

Nor  is  there  an  anachronism  in  the  phrase  "  land  of 
the  Hebrews  "  (ver.  15).  "  Abram  the  Hebrew  "  was  the 
head  of  a  powerful  clan  (xiv.  13,  14),  recognized  as  such 
by  native  tribes  of  Canaan  (xxiii.  6),  and  his  friendship 
sought  by  the  king  of  the  Philistines  (xxi.  22,  sqq.). 
Isaac's  greatness  is  similarly  described  (xxvi.  13  seq.,  26 
sqq.).  The  prince  and  people  of  Shechem  were  will- 
ing to  submit  to  circumcision  for  the  sake  of  friendly  in- 
tercourse and  trade  with  Jacob,  and  Jacob's  sons  avenged 
the  wrong  done  their  sister  by  the  destruction  of  the  city 
(ch.  xxxiv.).  The  Hebrews  had  been  in  Canaan  for  two 
centuries,  and  their  presence  was  influential  and  widely 
known.  There  is  nothing  strange,  therefore,  in  the  fact 
'  See  cli.  XX. ,  Marks  of  E,  No.  4. 


Pharaoh's  dreams  (ch.  xli.)  467 

that  Potipliar's  wife  calls  Joseph  a  Hebrew  (xxxix.  14, 
17),  or  that  he  could  speak  of  the  country  whence  he 
came  as  the  land  of  the  Hebrews. 


DICTION 

The  one  divine  name  in  this  chapter,  Elohim  (ver.  8), 
is  doubly  appropriate.  It  is  in  an  address  to  Gentiles, 
and  there  is  an  obvious  contrast  between  man  and  God ; 
interpretations  belong  to  the  latter,  not  to  the  former. 

Knobel,  who  gave  chs.  xl.,  xli.  to  P,  notes  the  follow- 
ing words  as  characteristic  of  P  :  v]2p  ivas  ivroth  (xl.  2  ; 
xli.  10),  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  Ex.  xvi,  20  ;  Lev.  x.  6, 
16  ;  Num.  xvi.  22 ;  xxxi.  14  P  ;  Josh.  xxii.  18  E  ;  also  Deut. 
i.  34  ;  ix.  7,  8,  19,  22  ;  the  corresponding  noun,  qi:]?  wrath, 
occurs  in  the  Hexateuch  Num.  i.  53 ;  xvii.  11  (E.  V.,  xvi. 
46) ;  xviii.  5  ;  Josh.  ix.  20  P  ;  Josh.  xxii.  20  R  ;  Deut.  xxix. 
27  (E.  v.,  ver.  28).  bo  basket  (xl.  16-18)  occurs  besides 
in  the  Hexateuch  Ex.  xxix.  3,  23,  32  ;  Lev.  viii.  2,  26,  31 ; 
Num.  vi.  15,  17,  19  P.  fs  station  (xl.  13 ;  xli.  13)  occurs 
besides  in  the  Hexateuch  only  in  application  to  the  base 
of  the  laver  (Ex.  xxx.  18,  and  repeatedly,  P).  Dillmann 
passes  these  quietly  by  without  remark. 

Pharaoh's  dreams  (ch.  xm.) 

Tuch  shows  that  as  ch.  xl.  was  both  in  general  and  in 
particular  preparatory  for  ch.  xli.,  so  this  latter  is  indis- 
pensable for  all  that  follows.  It  is  here  related  how  Jo- 
seph, who  was  chosen  of  God  for  high  ends,  was  raised 
from  the  prison  to  the  office  of  vizier ;  and  the  rest  of 
the  book  (ch.  xlii.  xlvii.)  turns  upon  Joseph's  services 
to  the  people  and  the  king,  and  upon  the  predicted  fam- 
ine w^hich  brought  about  the  migration  of  Jacob  and  his 
family  to  Egypt.     All  this  is  quite  unintelligible  without 


468  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

the  narrative  wliicli  lies  here  before  us.  Add  the  specific 
references  to  eh.  xl.  previously  pointed  out,  the  etymolo- 
gies of  the  names  Manasseh  and  Ephraim  (vs.  51,  52),  af- 
ter the  manner  of  ch.  xxx.,  and  the  birth  of  these  sons  of 
Joseph  to  prepare  the  way  for  their  adoption  by  Jacob 
(ch.  xlviii.)  where  xlviii.  5,  "  born  before  I  came  unto 
thee  into  Egypt,"  plainly  points  back  to  xli.  50. 

GROUNDS   OF  PARTITION 

The  following  reasons  are  assigned  by  Dillmann  for 
assigning  this  chapter  to  E :  The  significant  dreams  and 
the  power  of  interpreting  them,  which  are  of  no  more 
weight  here  than  in  ch.  xl.;  that  Joseph  is  called  "  ser- 
vant to  the  captain  of  the  guard  "  (ver.  12),  but  he  was 
also  a  prisoner  (ver.  14),  which  is  evaded  after  the  usual 
critical  fashion  by  erasing  from  the  text  the  words  "  and 
they  brought  him  hastily  out  of  the  dungeon,"  as  an  in- 
sertion from  a  hypothetical  parallel  of  J  ;  but  even  then 
his  shaving  himself  and  changing  his  raiment  are  an  al- 
lusion to  his  prison  attire,  or  why  are  not  the  same  things 
mentioned  when  others  are  presented  before  the  king  ? 
The  references  to  ch.  xl.  (xli.  10-13,  cf.  xl.  1  sqq. ;  xli. 
16,  cf.  xl.  8),  and  unusual  words  common  to  both  chap- 
ters (nns  interpfet,  "jinns  interpretation,  "js  station,  p^]p  was 
wroth),  point  to  the  same  author,  but  in  no  way  imply 
that  he  was  not  the  author  of  ch.  xxxix.  and  xliii.  as  well. 
Elohim  in  vs.  16,  25,  32,  38,  39  is  in  language  addressed 
to  Pharaoh  or  used  by  him ;  vs.  51,  52  are  the  only  in- 
stances in  which  Jehovah  could  with  any  propriety  be 
substituted  for  it,  and  even  there  Elohim  is  equally  ap- 
propriate, for  the  reference  is  to  God's  providential  bless- 
ings, such  as  men  in  general  may  share,  rather  than  to 
specific  favor  granted  to  one  of  the  chosen  race.  "^^^^^ 
apart  from  (vs.  16,  44),  but  once  besides  in  Genesis  (xiv. 


phaeaoh's  dreams  (ch.  xli.)  469 

24,  which  is  referred  by  Dillmann  to  E,  but  by  the  ma- 
jority of  critics  to  an  independent  source) ;  and  occurring 
twice  more  in  the  Hexateuch  (Num.  v.  20  ;  Josh.  sxii.  19 
P).  The  arguments  for  considering  this  chapter  a  part 
of  the  document  E  are  accordingly  lame  and  impotent 
enough. 

We  are  further  informed  that  this  chapter  is  not  a  unit 
as  it  stands.     It  is  essential  for  the  critics  to  establish,  if 
possible,  the  existence  of  a  parallel  narrative  by  J,  which 
may  have  filled  the  gap  in  that  document  between  Jo- 
seph's imprisonment  and  his    elevation.      Accordingly 
stress  is  laid  upon  some  slight  verbal  changes  in  repeat- 
ing Pharaoh's  dreams,  especially  the  words  added  to  the 
description  of  the  lean  kine  (ver.  19),  "  such  as  I  never 
saw  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt  for  badness,"  and  (ver.  21), 
"  when  they  had  eaten  up  the  fat  kine  it  could  not  be 
known  that  they  had  eaten  them  ;  but  they  were  still  ill- 
favored  as  at  the  beginning."     But  if  this  is  to  show  that 
J  gave  a  parallel  account  of  the  dreams,  it  annuls  the 
criterion,  upon  which  the  critics  steadfastly  insist,  that  E 
alone  records  dreams.     A  vigorous  search  is  also  made 
for  so-called  doublets.    Wherever  the  writer  does  not  con- 
tent himself  Avith  a  bald  and  meagre  statement  of  what  he 
is  recording,  but  feels  impelled  to  enlarge  and  dwell  upon 
it  in  order  to  give  his  thought  more  adequate  expression, 
the  amplifications  or  repetitions  which  he  employs  are 
seized  upon  as  though  they  were  extraneous  additions 
imported  into  E's  original  narrative  by  Pv  from  an  im- 
aginary parallel  account  by  J,  just  as  a  like  fulness  of 
expression  in  other  passages  is  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
critics  declared  to  be  indicative  of  the  verbose  and  rep- 
etitious style  of  P. 

The  dreams  (vs.  2-7)  are  repeated  (vs.  18-24)  in  al- 
most identical  terms,  only  in  a  very  few  instances  equiv- 
alent expressions  are  employed,  viz.  :  iJSip /or»i  (vs.  18, 


470  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

19),  for  riiiTJi  appearance  (vs.  2,  3),  but  see  xxix.  17  E  ; 
xxxix.  6  J;  pn  lean  (ver.  19),  for  p'l  tldn  (ver.  3)  ;  ^blzfuU 
(ver.  22),  for  55113  /a^  (ver.  5),  but  see  ver.  7.  The  al- 
leged doublets  are  ver.  31  parallel  to  ver.  30b ;  ver.  31 
nipS^'i  make,  parallel  to  lp©i  appoint ;  ver.  35b  to  35a ; 
vs.  41,  43b,  44,  to  ver.  40  (Joseph's  rule  is  stated  four 
times,  so  that  repetition  cannot  be  escaped  bj  parcelling 
it  between  E  and  J) ;  ver.  49  to  48 ;  vs.  55,  56a,  to  54b 
(the  universality  of  the  famine  is  repeated  three  times,  in- 
cluding ver.  57b).  It  is  also  affirmed  that  the  following 
expressions  are  indicative  of  J :  ni!;l  see  (ver.  41)  as  xxvii. 
27 ;  xxxi.  50  ;  xxxix.  14 ;  nsp^  i^i?'  ^3  .  .  .  D^n  b-'ns 
as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  for  it  was  ivithout  number  (ver  49), 
as  xxii.  17  R ;  xxxii.  13  (E.  Y.  ver.  12)  J.  While  it  is 
claimed  that  these  indicate  two  narrators,  Dillmann  ad- 
mits that  in  several  instances  there  are  no  criteria  by 
which  to  distinguish  which  is  E  and  which  J.  The  fur- 
ther occurrence  of  words  in  this  chapter,  which  according 
to  critical  rules  should  belong  to  P,  e.g.,  Q'l2in  magician 
(vs.  8,  24),  in  the  Pentateuch  besides  only  Ex.  vii.  11,  22  ; 
viii.  3,  14,  15  (E.  v.,  vs.  7,  18,  19);  ix.  11,  all  P;  ^iips 
store  (ver.  36),  besides  in  the  Old  Testament  only  Lev. 
V.  21,  23  (E.  v.,  vi.  2,  4)  P;  ^r^p  liamlful  (ver.  47),  be- 
sides in  the  Old  Testament  only  Lev.  ii.  2 ;  v.  12 ;  vi.  8 
(E.  v.,  ver.  15),  and  the  corresponding  verb  only  Lev.  ii. 
2 ;  V.  12 ;  Num.  v.  26,  all  P,  leads  one  to  distrust  crite- 
ria in  other  cases,  which  the  critics  can  thus  disregard 
at  pleasure. 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  critical  partition  of  chs. 
xxxvii.-xli.  rests  upon  alleged  inconsistencies  in  the  nar- 
rative, which  plainly  do  not  exist  as  the  text  now  stands, 
but  which  the  critics  themselves  create  by  arbitrary  era- 
sures and  forced  interpretations.  The  literary  proof  of- 
fered of  the  existence  of  different  dociiments  is  of  the 
scantiest  kind.     There  are  no  indications  of  varying  die- 


Pharaoh's  dreams  (ch.  xli.)  471 

tion  of  any  account.  And  the  attempt  to  bridge  tlie 
chasms  in  the  documents  b}^  means  of  a  supposed  paral- 
lel narrative,  from  which  snatches  have  been  preserved 
by  R,  attributes  an  unaccountable  procedure  to  him,  and 
falls  to  pieces  at  once  upon  examination. 

There  are  three  staple  arguments  by  which  the  critics 
attempt  to  show  that  there  was,  in  the  sources  from  which 
K  is  conjectured  to  have  drawn,  a  second  narrative  par- 
allel to  that  in  the  existing  text.  Each  of  these  is  built 
ujjon  a  state  of  facts  antagonistic  to  the  hypothesis, 
which  they  ingeniously  seek  to  wrest  in  its  favor  by  as- 
suming the  truth  of  the  very  thing  to  be  proved. 

1.  Facts  which  are  essential  to  the  narrative  could 
not,  it  is  said,  have  failed  to  apj)ear  in  either  document ; 
it  must  be  presumed,  therefore,  that  each  narrator  re- 
corded them. 

But  the  perpetual  recurrence  of  such  serious  gaps  in 
the  so-called  documents,  which  the  critics  are  by  every 
device  laboring  to  construct,  tends  rather  to  show  that  no 
such  documents  ever  really  had  any  separate  existence. 
That  these  gaps  are  due  to  omissions  by  R  is  pure  as- 
sumption, with  no  foundation  but  the  unproved  hypothesis 
which  it  is  adduced  to  support ;  an  assumption,  moreover, 
at  variance  with  the  conduct  repeatedly  attributed  to  E  in 
other  places,  where  to  relieve  other  complications  of  the 
hypothesis  he  is  suj^x^osed  to  have  scrupulously  preserved 
luiimportant  details  from  one  of  his  sources,  even  though 
they  were  superfluous  repetitions  of  what  had  already 
been  extracted  from  another. 

2.  When  words  and  phrases  which  the  critics  regard 
as  characteristic  of  one  document  are  found,  as  they  fre- 
quently are,  in  sections  which  they  assign  to  the  other, 
it  is  claimed  that  R  has  mixed  the  texts  of  the  different 
documents. 

But  the  obvious  and  natural  conclusion  from  the  fact 


472  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

referred  to  is,  that  what  are  affirmed  to  be  characteristic 
words  of  different  documents  are  freely  used  by  the  same 
writer.  The  allegation  that  R  had  anything  to  do  with 
the  matter  is  an  assumption  which  has  no  other  basis 
than  the  hypothesis  wdiicli  it  is  brought  to  support.  It 
is  plain  that  any  conceit  whatever  could  be  carried 
through  successfully  if  every  deviation  from  its  require- 
ments was  sufficiently  explained  by  referring  it  to  E.. 

3.  Whenever  a  thought  is  repeated  or  dwelt  upon  for 
the  sake  of  giving  it  more  emphatic  expression,  the 
critics  scent  a  doublet,  affirming  that  R  has  appended  to 
the  statement  in  one  document  the  corresponding  state- 
ment contained  in  the  other. 

But  here  again  the  agency  of  R  is  pure  assumption, 
based  on  the  hypothesis  in  whose  interest  it  is  alleged. 
That  a  writer  should  use  more  amplitude  and  fulness 
in  describing  matters  of  special  moment  is  quite  intelli- 
gible. But  why  a  compiler  like  R  should  encumber  the 
narrative  by  reduplicating  what  he  has  alread}'  drawn 
from  one  source  by  the  equivalent  language  of  another, 
or  why,  if  this  is  his  method  in  the  instances  adduced,  he 
does  not  consistently  pursue  it  in  others,  does  not  appear. 
Why  should  he  leave  serious  gaps  in  matters  of  real  mo- 
ment, while  so  solicitous  of  preserving  petty  details, 
which  add  nothing  to  what  has  been  said  already  ? 

What  are  so  confidently  paraded  as  traces  or  indica- 
tions of  some  missing  portion  of  a  critical  document  are 
accordingly  rather  to  be  esteemed  indications  that  the 
documents  of  the  critics  are  a  chimera. 

On  the  assumption  that  it  is  peculiar  to  P  to  record 
ages  Kautzsch  assigns  to  this  document  ver.  46a,  "  And 
Joseph  was  thirty  years  old  when  he  stood  before  Pha- 
raoh king  of  Egypt."  Dillmann  gives  it  the  entire  verse, 
as  also,  though  with  some  hesitation,  the  statement  of 
Joseph's  age  at  an  earlier  period,  in  xxxvii.  2.     Isolated 


Jacob's  sois-s  go  to  egypt  (ch.  xlii.-xliv.)    473 

clauses  are  thus  rent  from  their  connection,  though  there 
is  nothing  in  P  to  whicli  to  attach  them,  and  though  their 
entire  significance  lies  in  the  light  which  they  shed  upon 
the  intervening  narrative  from  which  they  are  arbitrarily 
separated,  whose  duration  it  is  their  province  to  indicate. 
Dillmann  himself  in  his  first  edition  contended  that  the 
numbers  in  these  verses  did  not  belong  to  P.  And  the 
critical  assumption  on  which  this  assignment  rests  is  set 
aside  by  Dillmann  as  well  as  others  in  Gen.  1.  26  ;  Josh, 
xiv.  7, 10  ;  xxiv.  29,  where  the  record  of  the  ages  of  Joseph, 
Caleb,  and  Joshua  is  attributed  to  E.  Noldeke,  followed 
by  Schrader,  Kayser,  Kuenen,  and  others,  denies  that 
either  of  the  verses  in  question  belong  to  P,  and  finds  in 
xlvi.  6,  7  the  first  extract  from  that  document  in  this  sec- 
tion of  Genesis.  Dillmann's  suggestion  that  the  full 
phrase,  "  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt  "  (ver.  46),  occurs  again 
(Ex.  vi.  11, 13,  27,  29  ;  xiv.  8  P)  is  of  little  force,  because 
"Pharaoh"  alone  is  uniformly  used  in  aU  the  passages 
ascribed  to  P  except  the  verses  just  named,  where  the 
full  phrase  is  emphatically  employed,  as  is  evident  from 
the  iteration  in  Ex.  vi. 

JOURNEYS   OF  JACOB'S   SONS   TO   EGYPT    (CH.    XLII.-XLIV.) 

The  critics  tell  us  that  ch.  xlii.,  which  records  the  first 
journey  of  Jacob's  sons  to  Egypt,  is  by  E,  and  chs.  xliii., 
xliv.,  their  second  joui'uey,  is  by  J.  Yet  the  second  jour- 
ney implies  the  first,  and  is  filled  throughout  with  nu- 
merous and  explicit  allusions  to  it.  It  was  (xliii.  2)  after 
they  had  eaten  up  the  corn  already  brought  that  their 
father  urged  them  to  go  again.  All  then  turns  upon 
Joseph's  having  required  them  to  bring  Benjamin  (xliii. 
3-11 ;  cf.  xUi.  15,  16,  20,  34).  Jacob's  solicitude  for  Ben- 
jamin is  the  same,  xlii.  4  as  ver.  38 ;  xliv.  29.  Repeated 
reference  is  made  to  the  money  returned  in  their  sacks 


474  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

(xliii.  12,  15,  18-23  ;  xliv.  8  ;  cf.  xlii.  25,  28,  35),  and  to 
Simeon's  detention  (xliii.  14,  23  ;  cf.  xlii.  19,  24).  Ja- 
cob's sense  of  bereavement  (xliii.  14)  corresponds  with 
previous  statements  (xlii.  36  ;  xxxvii.  34,  35).  Joseph 
speaks  of  their  father  and  youngest  brother,  of  whom 
they  had  previously  told  him  (xliii.  27-29 ;  cf .  xlii.  13, 
32).  They  bow  before  him  in  fulfilment  of  his  dreams 
(xliii.  26,  28  ;  xliv.  14 ;  cf.  xxxvii.  10,  xlii.  6,  9).  Josei)h 
orders  their  money  to  be  replaced  in  their  sacks  (xliv.  1), 
as  before  (xlii.  25).  And  Judah's  touching  address  to 
Josej)li  (xliv.  18-34)  recites  anew  the  circumstances  of 
their  former  visit,  together  with  their  father's  grief  at  the 
loss  of  Joseph  (cf.  xliv.  28  with  xxxvii.  33).  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  two  parts  of  the  same  narrative  could  be  more 
closely  bound  together. 

Nevertheless  it  is  maintained  that  all  these  allusions 
to  what  took  place  in  the  former  journey  are  not  to  the 
record  given  of  it  in  ch.  xlii.,  but  to  a  quite  different  nar- 
rative; that  a  careful  consideration  of  chs.  xliii.,  xliv.  will 
show  that  they  are  not  the  sequel  of  ch.  xlii.,  but  of  a 
parallel  account  by  J,  which  no  longer  exists  indeed,  in- 
asmuch as  E  did  not  think  fit  to  preserve  it,  but  which 
can  be  substantially  reconstructed  from  the  hints  and  in- 
timations in  these  chapters  themselves,  and  must  have 
varied  from  that  of  E  in  several  particulars.  K  is  here, 
as  always,  the  scapegoat  on  whose  head  these  incongrui- 
ties are  laid,  though  no  very  intelligible  reason  can  be 
given  why  ho  should  have  constructed  this  inimitable 
history  in  such  a  disjointed  manner.  And  it  is  likewise 
strange  that  the  discrepancies  between  the  two  narratives, 
so  strenuously  urged  by  Wellhauseu  and  Dillmann,  seem 
to  have  escaped  the  usually  observant  eye  of  Hupfeld, 
who  makes  no  mention  of  them.  As  Ugen,  DeWette,  and 
Gramberg  had  raised  the  same  difficulties  before,  Hup- 
feld's  silence  can  only  mean  that  he  did  not  deem  them 


Jacob's  son-s  go  to  egypt  (ch,  xlii.-xliv.)    475 

worth  repeating.  Knobel,  though  ready  enough  to  under- 
take a  critical  division  elsewhere,  insists  on  the  unity  of 
chs.  xlii.-xlv.,  and  maintains  that  the  charge  of  inconsist- 
encies is  unfoimded.  The  same  judgment,  one  would 
think,  must  be  formed  by  any  candid  person. 


NO  DISCREPANCY 

The  alleged  inconsistencies  are  the  following : 
1.  In  E  Eeuben  is  the  speaker  (slii.  22),  and  it  is  he 
who  becomes  surety  for  Benjamin's  safe  return  (ver.  37). 
In  J  Judah  is  the  surety  for  Benjamin,  and  takes  the 
lead  throughout  (xliii.  3-5,  8-10  ;  xliv.  14  sqq.). 

But  these  acts  and  offices  do  not  exclude  one  another. 
Why  should  not  more  than  one  of  Jacob's  sons  have 
sought  to  influence  him  in  a  case  of  such  extreme  im- 
portance to  them  all  ?  If  Keuben  had  pleaded  without 
effect,  why  should  not  Judah  renew  the  importunity,  as 
the  necessity  became  more  urgent  ?  It  is  here  precisely 
as  with  the  separate  proposals  of  Keuben  and  Judah 
(xxxvii.  22,  26),  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  critics  like- 
wise seek  without  reason  to  array  against  each  other. 
Keuben's  allusion  (xlii.  22)  to  his  interference  in  that  in- 
stance implies  that  his  remonstrance  was  not  heeded,  and 
that  his  brothers  were  responsible  for  Joseph's  death, 
which  he  sought  to  prevent.  As  the  critics  represent  the 
matter,  this  was  not  the  case.  At  Eeuben's  instance  they 
put  Joseph  in  a  pit  instead  of  shedding  his  blood.  Now 
if,  as  the  critics  will  have  it,  Midianite  merchants  found 
him  there  and  carried  him  off  in  the  absence  of  all  the 
brothers,  the  others  had  no  more  to  do  with  his  disap- 
pearance than  Eeuben  had.  Eeuben's  unresisted  charge 
that  the. rest  were  guilty  of  Joseph's  death,  in  which  he 
himself  was  not  implicated,  finds  no  explanation  upon 
the  critics'  version  of  the  story.     It  is  only  when  the 


476  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

sundered  parts  of  the  narrative  are  brought  together,  and 
it  is  allowed  to  stand  in  its  complete  and  proper  form, 
that  Joseph  was  sold  to  the  Ishmaelites  at  the  suggestion 
of  Judah,  while  Keuben  supposed  him  to  be  still  in  the 
pit  and  hoped  to  return  him  to  his  father,  that  his  words 
have  any  meaning.  No  difficulty  is  created  by  Eeuben's 
speaking  of  his  blood  as  required.  The  brothers  im- 
agined him  to  be  no  longer  living.  Judah,  who  coun- 
selled the  sale,  speaks  of  him  as  dead  (xliv.  20  cf.  xlii. 
32).  By  selling  him  into  bondage  they  had,  as  they 
thought,  procured  his  death. 

Judah's  prominence  in  ch.  xliv.  is  due  entirely  to  his 
suretyship  for  Benjamin,  solicited  and  granted  in  ch. 
xliii.  As  Benjamin  was  endangered  by  the  discovery  of 
the  cup,  it  was  incumbent  upon  him  to  seek  to  obtain 
his  release. 

"Wellhausen  contends  that  xlii.  38  is  not  the  reply  to 
Reuben's  offer  to  be  a  surety  (ver.  37),  inasmuch  as  this 
latter  is  E's  parallel  to  xliii.  8-10  J,  and  instead  of  being 
refused  it  must  in  E's  account  have  been  accepted.  He 
insists  that  E's  narrative  is  abruptly  broken  off  at  xlii. 
37,  and  left  incomplete.  The  response  made  to  Reuben 
is  not  recorded ;  it  was  doubtless  the  same  in  substance 
that  J  reports  as  made  to  Judah  (xliii.  11  sqq.).  Instead 
of  this  R  introduces  an  irrelevant  verse  (xlii.  38),  a  dis- 
located fragment  of  J,  which  in  its  original  connection 
was  a  reply  to  something  quite  distinct  from  the  words 
by  which  it  is  here  preceded.  It  must  have  come  after 
the  equivalent  of  xliv.  26,  and  have  stood  between  xliii. 
2  and  3.  This  is  simply  to  manufacture  facts  in  the  face 
of  the  plain  declarations  of  the  text  itself,  which  leave  no 
doubt  as  to  the  answers  respectively  given  to  Reuben 
and  to  Judah.  All  this  confusion,  where  in  reality  no 
confusion  exists,  results  from  the  abortive  attempt  to 
create  a  parallel  narrative  out  of  nonentity.     The  critics 


Jacob's  sons  go  to  egypt  (ch.  xlii.-xliv.)    477 

are  under  the  necessity  of  assigning  xlii.  38  to  J,  since 
the  words  "  if  mischief  befall  him  ye  shall  bring  down 
my  gray  hairs  with  sorrow  to  the  grave  "  are  identical 
with  xliv.  29,  31,  and  must  obviously  be  from  the  same 
writer.  This,  however,  does  not  demonstrate  that  the 
verse  is  out  of  place,  but  simply  that  chs.  xlii.  and  xliv. 
are  from  one  pen. 

In  fact  the  agency  attributed  to  Reuben  and  Judah 
affords  a  plea,  not  for  the  critical  partition  of  these  chap- 
ters but  for  their  unity.  The  position  accorded  to  each 
is  consistent  throughout,  and  corresponds  with  the  rep- 
resentation made  of  them  in  the  blessing  of  Jacob  in  ch. 
xlix,  Reuben,  as  the  first-born,  was  charged  with  a  special 
responsibility,  which  led  him  to  come  forward  at  each 
crisis,  while  the  weakness  of  his  character  rendered  his 
interference  ineffectual.  He  did  not  accomplish  his 
purpose  of  rescuing  Joseph.  His  father,  whom  he  had 
grievously  wronged,  would  not  trust  him  with  Benjamin. 
Judah's  bold  and  energetic  nature  fitted  him  to  grasp  the 
reins  which  Reuben  was  incompetent  to  hold.  He  led 
the  brothers  in  their  passionate  determination  to  rid 
themselves  of  Joseph  and  nullify  his  ambitious  dreams. 
Sobered  by  the  discipline  of  years  he  rose  to  the  occa- 
sion, when  a  new  peril  threatened  his  father  in  the  loss 
of  his  favorite  Benjamin,  and  he  assumed  the  leader- 
ship with  an  unselfish  courage  and  a  tenderness  of  heart 
which  marked  him  out  as  one  fitted  to  rule,  and  which 
deservedly  won  for  him  the  position  among  his  brothers 
indicated  by  his  dying  father.  Plainly  we  have  here  not 
two  separate  sagas,  each  glorifying  a  favorite  son  of 
Jacob,  but  one  self-consistent  historical  account,  in  which 
both  appear  in  their  proper  characters. 

It  is  further  claimed  that — 

2.  J  knows  nothing  of  Simeon's  detention  related  by 
E  (xlii.  19,  24).     Judah  nowhere  alludes  to  it  in  arguing 


478  The  generations  of  jacob 

Avitli  his  father  (xliii.  3-10),  when  he  might  have  urged 
the  prospect  of  releasing  Simeon  as  an  additional  reason 
for  their  speedy  return  ;  nor  does  he  refer  to  it  in  his 
address  to  Joseph  (xliv.  18-34). 

But  the  supreme  interest  on  both  these  occasions  cen- 
tred about  Benjamin.  Would  his  father  consent  to  let 
him  go  ?  Would  Joseph  allow  him  to  return  to  his 
father?  These  Avere  the  questions  quite  apart  from  the 
case  of  Simeon,  so  that  in  dealing  with  them  there  was 
no  occasion  to  allude  to  him.  But  Simeon  is  directly 
spoken  of  twice  in  ch.  xliii.  AVhen  Jacob  is  starting 
them  on  their  return  he  prays  (ver.  14)  "  God  Almighty 
give  you  mercy  before  the  man,  that  he  may  release  unto 
you  your  other  brother  and  Benjamin."  And  (ver.  23) 
when  they  reach  the  house  of  Joseph  the  steward 
"  brought  Simeon  out  unto  them."  These  explicit  allu- 
sions to  Simeon's  imprisonment  are  evaded  by  declar- 
ing them  to  be  interpolations  from  E.  The  argument  for 
suppressing  them  may  be  fairly  stated  thus :  Because 
Simeon  is  not  referred  to  where  there  is  no  occasion  for 
speaking  of  him,  therefore  the  mention  which  is  made  of 
him  in  the  proper  place  cannot  be  an  integral  part  of 
the  text.  In  other  words,  whatever  the  critics  desire  to 
eliminate  from  a  passage  is  eliminated  without  further 
ceremony  by  declaring  it  spurious.  If  it  does  not  accord 
with  their  theory,  that  is  enough  ;  no  other  proof  is  nec- 
essary. 

Dillmann's  contention  that  xlii.  38  is  not  the  direct 
reply  to  ver.  37,  because  Simeon  is  not  spoken  of  in  it, 
is  futile  on  its  face ;  for  as  Keuben  makes  no  allusion 
to  him  in  his  proposal  there  is  no  reason  why  Jacob 
should  do  so  in  his  answer.  Simeon  was  kept  a  pris- 
oner to  insure  the  return  of  the  rest,  having  been  se- 
lected doubtless  because  he  was  second  in  age.  Joseph 
may  naturally  have  passed  over  Reuben  because  of  the 


Jacob's  sons  go  to  egypt  (ch.  xlii.-xliv.)     479 

kindly  disposition  which  he  had  manifested  toward  him- 
self. 

3.  "  lu  ch.  xlii.  Joseph  will,  by  detaining  Simeon,  com- 
pel the  brothers  at  all  events  to  come  back  again  with  or 
without  Benjamin ;  in  chs.  xliii,  sliv.,  on  the  contrary, 
he  forbids  them  to  come  back  if  Benjamin  is  not  with 
them.  In  ch.  xlii.  they  are  treated  as  spies ;  at  first  they 
are  all  put  into  prison  together,  and  then  only  set  free 
on  bail  to  bring  Benjamin,  and  thus  confirm  the  truth  of 
their  declarations.  But  in  chs.  xliii.,  xliv.  they  do  not 
go  back  to  Egypt  from  the  moral  obligation  of  clearing 
themselves  and  releasing  Simeon,  but  wait  till  the  corn 
is  all  gone  and  the  famine  constrains  them.  The  charge 
that  they  were  spies  was  not  brought  against  the  broth- 
ers at  all  according  to  xliii.  5-7  ;  xliv.  18  sqq. ;  it  was  not 
this  which  induced  them,  as  in  ch.  xlii.,  to  explain  to  Jo- 
seph who  and  whence  they  really  were,  and  thus  involun- 
tarily to  make  mention  of  Benjamin,  but  Joseph  directly 
asked  them,  Is  jonv  father  yet  alive?  have  ye  another 
brother?  and  then  commanded  them  not  to  come  into 
his  presence  again  without  him."  ' 

All  this  is  only  an  attempt  to  create  a  conflict  where 
there  is  none.  One  part  of  a  transaction  is  set  in  oppo- 
sition to  another  equally  belonging  to  it.  One  motive  is 
arrayed  against  another,  as  though  they  were  incompati- 
ble, when  both  were  alike  operative.  When  Joseph  told 
his  brothers  that  they  must  verify  their  words  by  Benja- 
min's coming  or  be  considered  spies  (xlii.  15,  16,  20,  34), 
he  in  effect  told  them  that  they  should  not  see  his  face 
again  unless  Benjamin  was  with  them.  They  delay  their 
return  until  the  corn  was  all  used  up,  because  nothing 
less  than  imminent  starvation  will  induce  Jacob,  who  has 
already  lost  two  sons,  to  risk  the  loss  of  his  darling. 
That  Joseph  directly  interrogated  them  about  their  father 
1  Wellhausen,  Comp.  d.  Hexateuchs,  p.  55, 


480  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

aud  brotlier  is  not  expressly  said  in  cb.  xlii.  ;  but  as  the 
entire  interview  is  not  narrated  in  detail,  there  is  nothing 
to  forbid  it.  The  critics  do  not  themselves  insist  on  the 
absolute  conformity  of  related  passages,  unless  the}-  have 
some  end  to  answer  by  it.  The  words  of  Reuben,  as  re- 
ported xlii.  22,  are  not  identical  Avith  those  ascribed  to 
him  xxxvii.  22 ;  and  nothing  is  said  in  ch.  xxxvii.  of 
Joseph's  beseeching  his  brothers  in  the  anguish  of  his 
soul,  as  in  xlii.  21.  Jacob's  sons,  in  rehearsing  their  ex- 
perience to  their  father  (xlii.  29-34)  omit  his' first  propo- 
sition to  keep  all  of  them  but  one,  and  their  three  days' 
imprisonment,  and  add  that  if  they  prove  true  they  might 
traffic  in  the  land.  Judah,  iu  relating  the  words  of  his 
father  (xliv.  27-29),  does  not  limit  himself  to  language 
which,  according  to  xliii.  2  sqq.,  he  uttered  on  the  occa- 
sion referred  to.  In  these  instances  the  critics  find  no 
discrepancies  within  the  limits  of  the  same  document, 
but  count  it  sufficient  that  the  general  sense  is  preserved. 
If  they  would  interpret  with  equal  candor  elsewhere 
their  imaginary  difficulties  would  all  melt  away. 

4.  A  discrepancy  is  alleged  regarding  the  money  found 
in  the  sacks.  According  to  xliii.  21  J  the  discovery  was 
made  at  the  lodging  on  their  way  home,  but  according 
to  xlii.  35  E,  after  their  arrival  home,  and  in  the  presence 
of  their  father. 

But  there  is  no  necessary  variance  here.  The  state- 
ment in  xlii.  27,  28  is  that  one  of  the  brothers,  on  open- 
ing his  sack  at  the  lodging,  found  his  money,  and  reported 
the  fact  to  the  rest,  whereat  they  were  greatly  alarmed. 
Now,  the  critics  argue  if  one  opened  his  sack  to  give  his 
ass  provender,  must  not  the  rest  have  done  the  same, 
and  made  the  same  discovery  ?  and  especially  as  they 
were  so  agitated  by  the  fact  that  one  had  found  his  money 
in  his  sack,  would  not  the  rest  have  made  instant  seai'ch 
in  theirs  ?     Dillmann  further  pleads  that  insn  the  one,  in 


Jacob's  sons  go  to  egypt  (ch.  xlii.-xliv.)    481 

ver.  27,  properly  means  the  first  in  order,  implying  that 
the  others  subsequently  did  the  same.  And  Wellhausen 
tells  us  that  R  has  omitted  a  clause,  which  must  origi- 
nally have  stood  in  these  verses,  "then  the  others  also 
opened  their  sacks,  and  behold,  every  man's  money  was 
in  his  sack,  their  money  in  full  weight."  These  verses, 
it  is  claimed,  are  in  exact  correspondence  with  xliii.  21, 
and  belong  not  to  E's,  but  to  J's,  account.  This  con- 
jectural reasoning  and  this  hypothetical  change  of  text 
are  of  course  of  no  account.  But  if  the  critics  are  cor- 
rect in  the  interpretation  which  they  put  upon  these 
verses,  as  implying,  even  though  they  do  not  expressly 
state,  that  the  discovery  of  his  money  by  one  led  to  its 
discovery  by  all  the  rest  at  the  inn,  there  is  not  the 
shadow  of  a  discrepancy  in  the  entire  record.  This  is 
in  fact  the  explanation  adopted  by  Matthew  Poole  in 
order  to  harmonize  the  whole  account.  He  thus  com- 
ments upon  the  words  in  ver.  27,  "  one  of  them  opened 
his  sack  :  "  "  And  after  him  the  rest,  by  his  example  and 
information  did  so,  as  is  affirmed  xliii.  21,  and  not  de- 
nied here."  And  then,  when  they  reached  home  and 
emptied  their  sacks  in  the  presence  of  their  father,  and 
they  and  he  saw  the  bundles  of  money,  "  their  fear  re- 
turned upon  them  with  more  violence." 

If,  however,  xlii.  27  is  to  be  imderstood  as  meaning 
that  only  one  happened  upon  the  discovery  of  his  money 
at  the  inn,  and  that  the  others,  having  no  occasion  to 
open  their  sacks,  since  Joseph  had  ordered  that  provision 
be  given  them  for  the  way  (ver.  25),  did  not  find  that 
theirs  had  been  restored  till  they  were  at  their  journey's 
end,  it  will  still  supply  no  argument  for  critical  partition. 
The  discrepanc}^  such  as  it  is,  lies  between  xlii.  27,  28, 
and  xliii.  22,  both  of  which  are  referred  to  J.  It  amounts 
simply  to  this :  in  reporting  their  discovery  of  the  money 
to  Joseph's  steward  the  brothers  do  not  detail  the  suc- 
31 


482  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

cessive  steps  by  which  they  came  to  a  full  knowledge  of 
the  case.  The  one  important  fact  was  that  they  all 
found  their  money  in  their  sacks.  That  part  was  found 
at  one  time,  and  part  at  another,  was  a  subordinate  mat- 
ter on  which  no  stress  need  be  laid.  So  in  speaking  of 
the  first  discovery  made  at  the  inn  they  include  in  it  all 
that  they  afterward  learned.  Their  statement,  though 
not  minutely  accurate,  was  yet  for  their  pui'pose  sub- 
stantially true. 

THE  DIVINE   NAMES 

The  divine  names  aflford  no  pretext  for  the  partition  of 
these  chapters.  Elohim  occurs  once  in  E  (xlii.  18),  and 
three  times  in  J  (xlii.  28 ;  xliii.  29  ;  xliv.  16).  And  El 
Shaddai,  God  Almighty,  which  is  regarded  as  a  peculiar 
characteristic  of  P,  occurs  in  xliii.  14  J.  R  is  invoked  to 
relieve  the  difhculty  in  xlii.  28  and  xliii.  14 ;  while  in 
xliii.  29 ;  xliv.  16,  the  critical  princij^le  is  abandoned, 
which  traces  the  occurrence  of  Elohim  to  the  usage  of 
the  particular  document  in  which  it  is  found  and  it  is 
confessed  that  its  employment  is  due  to  the  distinctive 
usage  of  the  word  itself.  These  names  are  in  every  case 
appropriately  used.  Jacob  commends  his  sons  to  the 
omnipotent  care  of  him  who  alone  could  effectually  aid 
in  his  helpless  extremity  (xliii.  14).  As  Joseph  was  act- 
ing the  part  of  an  Egyptian,  Elohim  is  the  proper  word 
when  he  is  speaking  (xlii.  18  ;  xliii.  29),  or  is  spoken  to 
(xliv.  16) ;  even  when  he  refers  specifically  to  the  God  of 
the  chosen  race  he  uses  a  periphrasis  instead  of  employ- 
ing the  name  Jehovah  (xliii.  23).  Contrast  with  this  the 
critical  claim  in  xxvi.  28,  29,  that  J  uses  Jehovah  even 
when  Gentiles  are  the  speakers.  In  xlii.  28  the  brothers, 
recognizing  in  what  has  taken  place  the  divine  ordering 
as  contrasted  with  merely  human  agency,  say  to  one  an- 
other. What  is  this  that  God  (Elohim)  hath  done  to  us? 


Jacob's  sons  go  to  egypt  (ch.  xlii.-xliv.)    483 


MABKS   of   J   AND  E 

1.  Vi^'St'Q  fodder,  is  attributed  to  J,  though  it  is  the 
proper  word  to  express  this  idea,  and  cannot  be  regarded 
as  characterizing  any  particular  writer.  It  is  used  four 
times  in  the  Hexateuch,  twice  in  this  narrative  (xlii.  27, 
cut  out  of  an  E  connection  and  given  to  J ;  xliii.  24  J), 
and  twice  in  the  story  of  Abraham's  servant  (xxiv.  25, 
32,  J). 

2.  ]ib'a  lodging-jikict,  is  claimed  as  belonging  to  J.  It 
occurs  twice  in  this  narrative  (xlii.  27,  cut  out  of  an  E 
context  and  given  to  J  ;  xliii.  21  J),  and  in  two  passages 
besides  in  the  Hexateuch  (Ex.  iv.  24 ;  Josh.  iv.  3,  8). 

3.  nnFi^s?  sack,  a  word  peculiar  to  this  narrative,  is 
claimed  for  J,  while  E's  word  for  the  same  is  said  to  be  pit). 
The  latter  properly  denotes  the  coarse  material  from 
which  sacks  and  the  dress  of  mourners  were  made,  and  is 
then  applied  to  anything  made  of  this  material.  rnri)3i5 
from  nvya  to  expand,  is  the  specific  term  for  a  bag  or  sack. 
The  grain  sacks  are  first  mentioned  xlii.  25,  Avhere  the 
general  term  ibs  vessel,  is  used  together  with  pip  ;  then  in 
vs.  27,  28,  pilJ  together  with  nnril2i5 ;  in  ver.  35  pic  alone, 
and  thenceforward  nnn^N,  as  the  proper  and  specific 
term,  is  steadfastly  adhered  to  in  the  rest  of  the  narrative 
throughout  chs.  xliii,  and  xliv.  That  this  afibrds  no 
argument  for  sundering  vs.  27,  28  from  their  present 
connection  and  assigning  them  to  another  writer  is  ob- 
vious, since  both  pw  and  nnriiai?  occur  there  together ; 
moreover,  Elohim  in  the  last  clause  of  ver.  28  forbids  it 
being  assigned  to  J.  Dillmann  evades  these  difiiculties 
by  assuming  that  these  verses  have  been  manipulated  by 
R,  who  inserted  ptC  and  transposed  the  unwelcome  clause 
from  its  original  position  after  ver.  35.  What  cannot  a 
critic  prove  with  the  help  of  II  ? 


484  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

4.  nyD  lad,  as  Benjamin  is  called  by  J  (xliii.  8  ;  xliv. 
22-34) ;  but  E  uses  instead  -jb-^  child  (xlii.  22  E,  said  of 
Joseph  at  the  time  when  he  was  sold).  J,  however,  like- 
wise calls  Benjamin  nb;^  (xliv.  20),  and  uses  the  same 
word  repeatedly  elsewhere,  e.g.,  xxxii.  23 ;  xxxiii.  1-14 
(i)  times) ;  while  E  uses  "lya  with  equal  frequency  (xiv.  24  ; 
xxi.  12-20  (6  times)  ) ;  ch.  xxii.  (5  times),  etc.  See  ch.  xxi. 
1-21,  Marks  of  E,  No.  6. 

5.  Israel  (xliii.  6,  8,  14  J)  ;  but  Jacob,  xlii.  1,  4,  29,  36, 
E;  also  sons  of  Israel,  xlii.  5  E.  See  ch.  xxxvii.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  1. 

6.  ■©■'Sjin  tlie  man,  said  of  Joseph  (xliii.  3,  5,  6,  7,  13, 
14 ;  xliv.  26  J),  while  E  says  ynsn  ^ns  HJ^sn  ^Ae  man, 
the  lord  of  the  land  (xlii.  30,  33).  The  full  phrase  was 
necessary  at  first  in  order  to  indicate  the  person  intend- 
ed; its  constant  repetition  afterward  would  be  cum- 
brous. In  like  manner  "  the  man  who  was  over  Joseph's 
house  "  (xliii.  16,  19)  is  simply  called  "  the  man  "  ( ver. 
17).  The  plui'al  construct  ^Diii  is  used  in  a  singular 
sense  but  once  besides  in  the  Pentateuch  (xxxix.  20), 
where  it  is  attributed  to  J. 

7.  nnbn  rii3  prison,  is  used  by  J  (xxxix.  20-23),  while 
E  has  'y'Qt'Q  ward  (xlii.  17,  19),  as  xl.  3,  4,  7 ;  xli.  10 ;  but 
the  former  also  occurs  in  an  E  context  (xl.  3,  5),  only  the 
clause  containing  it  is  cut  out  and  assigned  to  J  because 
of  this  very  phrase. 

8.  npbs  all  of  them,  the  prolonged  form  of  the  feminine 
plural  suffix  is  used  by  E  (xlii.  36),  as  xxi.  29  ;  xxxi.  6  ;  xli. 
21 ;  but  J  has  the  same  nsisn^  for  yiZTV^  xxx.  41. 

9.  rria  provision  (xlii.  25  E),  as  xlv.  21  ;  Josh.  ix.  11 ; 
but  so  J  xxvii.  3  ;  Ex.  xii.  39  ;  all  in  Hexateuch  except 
Josh.  i.  11  D. 

10.  nna  distress  (xlii.  21  bis  E) ;  but  so  J  Deut.  xxxi. 
17,  21 ;  all  in  Hexateuch. 

11.  IDT  remember  (xlii.  9  E),  as  xl.  14  bis,  23 ;  xli.  9 ; 


Jacob's  sons  go  to  egypt  (ch.  xlii.-xliv.)    485 

Ex.  XX.  8  (?),  24 ;  xxiii.  13  ;  but  so  J  Ex.  xiii.  3 ;  xxxii. 
13 ;  Lev.  xxvi.  42  (three  times),  45  (?),  Num.  xi.  5  ;  xv. 
39,  40  ;  P,  Gen.  viii.  1 ;  ix.  15,  16  ;  xix.  29  ;  xxx.  22  ;  Ex. 
ii.  24 ;  vi.  5 ;  Num.  v.  15  (?) ;  x.  9  (?)  ;  aU  in  Pentateucli 
except  Deuteronomy. 

12.  bDSi  food,  is  claimed  for  J  (xliii.  2,  4,  20,  22  ;  xliv. 
1,  25)  in  distinction  from  13  grain  (E  xli.  35,  49  ;  xlii.  3, 
25 ;  xlv.  23)  ;  but  the  former  occurs  in  E  xli.  35  bis,  36, 
48  bis  ;  xlii.  7,  10 ;  xlvii.  24,  unless  the  clauses  contain- 
ing it  are  arbitrarily  severed  from  their  context. 

13.  T\^  go  doivn,  and  Ti"\in  bring  down  (into  Egypt),  are 
said  to  be  used  by  J,  while  E  has  i^'^in  brriig.  See  ch. 
xxxvii.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  3. 

14.  ^2D  heavy  (xliii.  1) ;  mostly  referred  by  rule  to  J, 
even  when  it  has  to  be  cut  out  of  an  E  connection  for 
the  purpose,  as  Gen.  xli.  31 ;  Ex.  xix,  16 ;  Num.  xx.  20 ; 
yet  it  is  given  to  E  Ex.  xvii.  12  ;  xviii.  18.  So,  too,  the 
corresponding  verb  is  mostly  assigned  to  J,  and  is  in 
Ex,  V.  9  cut  out  of  an  E  connection  for  the  purpose ;  it 
is,  however,  given  to  E  Num.  xxii.  15,  17,  37 ;  and  to  P 
Ex.  xiv.  4, 17,  18  ;  Lev.  x.  3. 

15.  rts  with  b  and  the  infinitive  made  an  end  (xliii.  2  J). 
See  ch.  xxvi.  34-xxviii.  9,  Marks  of  J,  No.  2. 

16.  t23?'a  a  little  (xliii.  2,  11 ;  xliv.  25  J) ;  besides  in  J 
xviii.  4 ;  xxiv.  17,  43 ;  xxvi.  10 ;  xxx,  15,  30 ;  Josh.  vii. 
3  ;  in  JE  Num.  xvi.  13 ;  in  E  Ex.  xvii.  4 ;  xxiii.  30 ; 
Num.  xiii.  18 ;  in  P  Gen.  xlvii.  9 ;  Lev.  xxv.  52  ;  Num. 
xvi.  9  (worked  over) ;  xxvi.  54,  56  ;  xxxiii.  54 ;  xxxv.  8  ; 
in  Deut.  5  times ;  R  Josh.  xxii.  17 ;  all  in  Hexateuch. 

17.  ©';'  with  suffix  and  participle  (xliii.  4  J).  See  ch. 
xxiv.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  11. 

18.  fmarrann  linger-  (xliii.  10  J) ;  besides  in  J  xix.  16  ; 
Ex.  xii.  39 ;  all  in  Hexateuch. 

19.  "bMH  peradventure  (ver.  12  J).  See  ch.  xvi.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  12. 


486  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

20.  nriS  door  (ver.  19  J) ;  besides  in  J  iv.  7 ;  xviii,  1, 
2,  10 ;  xix.  6,  11  ;  xxxviii.  11 ;  Ex,  xii.  22,  23 ;  Num.  xi. 
10 ;  in  E  Ex.  xxxiii.  8,  9, 10 ;  Num.  xii.  5 ;  in  JE  Num. 
xvi.  27;  in  P  Gen.  vi.  16  and  fifty-five  times  besides; 
twice  in  Deut.,  and  once  referred  to  Rd,  viz.,  Josh.  viii. 
29. 

21.  ninrnrni  Ti^  hoio  the  head  and  make  obeisance  (ver. 
28  J).     See  ch.'  xxiv.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  20. 

22.  13  particle  of  entreaty  (xliii.  20  ;  xliv.  18  J) ;  be- 
sides in  J  Ex.  iv.  10,  13  ;  Num.  xii.  11 ;  Josh.  vii.  8 ;  all 
in  Hexateuch. 

23.  n^xn  D''11'^3  according  to  these  zvords  (xliv.  7  J). 
See  cb.  xxxix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  5. 

21.  b  nb-ibn  far  be  it,  followed  by  yn  with  the  infini- 
tive (xliv.  7,  17).     See  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  8. 

25.  The  ending  )^  (xliv.  1,  23  J).  See  ch.  xviii.,  xix., 
Marks  of  J,  No.  22. 

The  attempt  to  establish  a  parallel  narrative  to  ch. 
xlii.  for  J,  and  to  chs.  xUii.,  xliv.  for  E,  rests  on  very  slen- 
der grounds.  Snatches  of  the  former  are  suspected  in 
xlii.  2a,  4b,  6,  7,  10,  27,  28,  38,  and  of  the  latter  in  xliii. 
14,  23b.  It  is  alleged  that  xlii.  2a  is  superfluous  beside 
ver.  la,  which  it  is  not ;  ver.  4b  is  sundered  from  its  con- 
nection and  given  to  J  because  of  the  phrase  y(Ci^  ^iS^'^p'^ 
mischief  befall  him,  though  these  words  are  foiind  as  well 
in  E,  and  their  recurrence  (ver.  38 ;  xliv.  29),  instead  of 
being  a  reason  for  partition,  is  indicative  rather  of  the 
unity  of  the  entire  narrative  ;  ver.  6  because  of  ts'i^c 
governor,  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch, 
and  is  here  used  instead  of  D'^D^S!  lord,  as  vs.  30,  33,  E,  or 
bTE'a  ruler,  as  xlv.  8,  26,  E ;  but  if  the  same  writer  can 
speak  of  Joseph  as  D'^a^bH  and  bctt,  why  not  also  as  13"'^©, 
especially  as  u^btp  in  the  opinion  of  Dillmann  "  may  here 
be  a  technical  word  traditionally  preserved,  since  it 
agrees  remarkably  with  Salitis  or  Silitis,  the  name  of  the 


JOSEPH   MAKES   HIMSELF   KNOWN    (CH.    XLV.)       487 

first  ruler  of  the  Hyksos  in  Egypt ;  "  moreover,  it  is  very 
inconsistent  for  the  critics  to  refer  ver.  6  to  another  than 
E,  notwithstanding  the  plain  allusion  to  Joseph's  dreams 
in  the  last  clause  where  his  brothers  bow  themselves  to 
the  ground  before  him  (cf.  xxxvii.  10).  "  He  knew  them, 
but  made  himself  strange  unto  them,"  in  ver.  7,  is  said  to 
be  an  insertion  from  J  because  of  the  repetition  in  ver. 
8,  which,  how^ever,  is  for  the  sake  of  adding  a  contrasted 
thought,  and  the  removal  of  this  clause  leaves  the  follow- 
ing words,  "  spake  roughly  with  them,"  unexplained,  so 
that  Dillmann  finds  it  necessary  to  transpose  them  after 
ver.  9a.  So  ver.  10  because  of  bDJj  food,  though  this  is 
equally  found  in  E.  And  vs.  27,  28,  38,  for  reasons 
already  sufficiently  discussed.  Furthermore,  xliii.  14,  23b, 
are  cut  out  of  their  connection  and  given  to  E,  because 
they  flatly  contradict  the  critical  allegation  that  J  knows 
nothing  of  Simeon's  imprisonment  and  that  he  never 
says  El  Shaddai. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  phrase  "  land  of  Canaan," 
previously  claimed  as  characteristic  of  P,  here  appears 
repeatedly  in  E  (xlii.  5,  7,  13,  29,  32)  and  J  (xliv.  8). 
See  ch.  xii.  5,  Marks  of  P,  No.  4. 

JOSEPH   MAKES   HIMSELF   KNOWN    (CH.  XLV.) 

The  complications  of  the  immediately  preceding  chap- 
ters, as  is  correctly  observed  by  Tuch,  simply  serve  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  surprising  denouement  in  ch. 
xlv.,  which  is  a  sufiicient  proof  that  this  chapter  must  be 
from  the  narrator  of  the  foregoing  circumstances ;  and 
in  like  manner  ch.  xlv.  leads  directly  to  ch.  xlvi.  Never- 
theless the  critics  assign  this  chapter  in  the  main  to  E, 
on  the  ground  of  alleged  discrepancies  with  what  precedes 
and  follows.  How,  it  is  said,  could  Joseph  ask  (ver.  3) 
whether  his  father  was  yet  living  after  his  own  previous 


488  THE  GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

inquiry  (xliii.  27,  28),  and  Juclah's  speech  (xliv.  18-34),  as 
reported  by  J  ?  The  suggestion  only  shows  how  utterly 
this  cold  and  captious  criticism  is  out  of  sympathy  with 
the  writer,  and  with  the  whole  situation.  Joseph's  heart 
is  bursting  with  long-suppressed  emotion.  He  had 
asked  about  the  old  man  of  whom  they  spake.  He  can 
maintain  this  distance  and  reserve  no  longer.  With  the 
disclosure  "  I  am  Joseph,"  his  first  utterance  follows  the 
bent  of  his  affections,  "  How  is  my  father?" 

Again,  it  is  oljjected  that  Pharaoh  had  bidden  Joseph 
bring  his  father  with  his  household  to  Egypt,  promising 
him  the  good  of  the  land  (vs.  17,  18),  yet  (xlvii.  1)  Jo- 
seph announces  their  coming  to  Pharaoh,  as  though  he 
had  never  heard  of  it  before  ;  they  petition  (ver.  4)  to  be 
allowed  to  dwell  in  Goshen,  and  Pharaoh  grants  it  (ver. 
6),  Avithout  any  allusion  to  his  previous  invitation  and 
promise. 

But  there  is  no  implication  in  this  last  act  that  the 
first  had  not  preceded  it.  All  proceeds  quite  naturally  in 
the  narrative.  At  the  first  intimation  of  the  presence  of 
Joseph's  brethren  Pharaoh  asks  them  to  Egypt  to  share 
the  good  of  the  land,  assigning  them  no  residence,  and 
only  offering  them  subsistence  in  this  time  of  scarcity. 
Upon  their  actual  arrival  with  their  father  and  all  their 
possessions  Joseph  notifies  Pharaoh  of  the  fact,  and  pre- 
sents his  brethren  to  him  with  the  request  that  they  may 
dwell  in  Goshen  as  best  suited  to  their  occupation.  And 
when  this  is  granted  he  presents  his  aged  father  to  the 
king.     All  is  as  consistent  and  natural  as  possible. 

It  is  further  urged  that  there  are  back  references  to 
this  chapter  and  coincidences  with  it  in  other  E  passages 
which  are  indicative  of  their  common  origin.  Thus,  xlvi. 
6  makes  mention  of  the  wagons  sent  by  Pharaoh 
to  bring  the  wives  of  Joseph's  brethren,  and  their  little 
ones,  and  their  father,  agreeably  to  xlv.  19,  21.  Chs.  xlvii. 


JOSEPH    MAKES    HIMSELF   KNOWN    (CH.    XLV.)        489 

12,  1.  21  allude  to  Joseph's  promise  (xlv.  11)  to  noiirisli 
liis  father  and  his  household.  The  reference  of  all  that 
had  befalleu  Joseph  to  the  providence  of  God  (xlv.  7,  8) 
is  as  1.  20 ;  and  the  exalted  position  assigned  to  Joseph 
in  Egypt  (xlv.  8)  is  as  xli.  40-43. 

The  common  authorship  of  these  so-called  E  passages 
is  freely  admitted.  But  this  is  no  concession  to  critical 
partition.  Precisely  the  same  line  of  proof  from  allu- 
sions and  coincidences  links  this  chapter  indissolubly  to 
J  passages  likewise.  The  constitution  of  the  chapter  is 
clearly  at  variance  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  critics, 
since  what  they  allege  to  be  criteria  of  distinct  docu- 
ments, whether  in  language  or  in  the  contents  of  the 
narrative,  are  here  inseparably  blended.  Their  only  re- 
source here,  as  elsewhere,  is  to  interpret  these  damaging 
clauses  as  insertions  by  R,  which  they  accordingly  cut 
out  of  their  proper  connection  and  assign  to  J  as  though 
they  were  scraps  taken  from  a  supposed  parallel  narra- 
tive of  his. 

Verse  la  is  given  to  J  because  of  pEiilnri  refrain  himself; 
only  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  xliii.  31  J;  but  lb, 
closely  connected  with  it,  is  assigned  to  E  because  of 
yiinn  made  himself  known  ;  only  besides  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Num.  xii.  6  E. 

Verse  2  is  declared  superfluous  in  its  connection  be- 
side ver.  16.  But  it  is  not.  The  action  progresses  regu- 
larly. Joseph's  weeping  was  heard  by  those  outside  (ver. 
2),  but  the  occasion  of  it  became  known  subsequently 
(ver.  16). 

Verse  4b,  the  sale  of  Joseph  into  Egypt  is  in  the  wrong 
document ;  of  course  excision  is  necessary. 

Verse  5  is  a  singular  medley  ;  no  two  successive  clauses 
can  be  assigned  to  the  same  document.  The  first  clause 
has  ^3^;^r>  he  grieved,  J,  as  vi.  6  ;  xxxiv.  7  ;  the  second 
D5''.r3?3  in^  (anger)  hum  in  your  eyes,  only  besides  in  the 


490  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

Old  Testament  xxxi,  35  E ;  tlie  third,  the  sale  of  Joseph, 
J  ;  the  fourth,  Eloliim,  E. 

Verse  7a  repeats  5b,  but  Elohim  occurs  in  both,  com- 
pelling the  critics  to  give  both  to  E,  and  so  confess  that 
repetition  is  not  proof  of  a  doublet,  or  else,  as  Kautzsch 
proposes,  to  change  one  Elohim  to  Jeliovah,  and  throw 
the  blame  on  E.  Dillmann  remarks  upon  the  construc- 
tion as  unusual  and  difficult,  which  affords  him  a  pre- 
text for  the  conjecture  that  it  is  a  mutilated  insertion 
from  J.  It  is  of  little  consequence  how  it  is  accom- 
plished, so  that  a  foothold  is  found  in  the  verse  for  J, 

Verse  10,  Joseph's  naming  Goshen  as  their  place  of 
abode  is  implied  in  xlvi.  28  J,  where  Jacob  goes  directly 
thither.  It  is  hence  severed  from  its  connection  and 
given  to  J,  in  whole  or  in  part,  while  its  minute  enumera- 
tion of  particulars  is  such  as  is  elsewhere  held  to  charac- 
terize P  in  distinction  from  both  J  and  E. 

Verse  13  is  assigned  to  J  because  of  T^nin  bring  doivn, 
as  xxxix,  1,  and  because  it  repeats  ver.  9  ;  so  ver.  14,  be- 
cause of  ini5-i2  b^  bsS/eZZ  upon  the  neck,  as  xxxiii.  4,  xlvi. 
29 ;  while  ver.  15,  a  part  of  the  same  scene,  is  given  to  E. 
Wellhausen  by  comparison  with  xxxiii.  4  tries  to  estab- 
lish a  diversity  between  J  and  E  in  the  construction  of 
pTBp  kissed,  a  conclusion  which  Dillmann  thinks  "  weak  in 
its  feet." 

Verse  19.  DD'^TIJsbl  DDBT2b/o)^  your  little  ones  and  for  your 
ivives,  is  a  J  phrase. 

Verse  20.  Dnr\-bi?  DDD'^?  let  not  your  eye  spare  (E.  V., 
regard  not),  is  peculiar  to  D  ;  "  the  good  of  all  the  land 
of  Egypt  is  yours  "  duplicates  ver.  18. 

Verse  21.  "  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  so,"  is 
such  a  preliminary  statement  of  what  is  more  fully  de- 
tailed afterward  as  the  critics  are  in  the  habit  of  reckon- 
ing a  duplicate  account. 

Verse  28  is  the  response  to  ver.  27 ;  but  one  verse  has 


JOSEPH    MAKES   HIMSELF   KNOWN    (CH.    XLV.)       491 

"  Jacob,"  and  must  be  assigned  to  E,  while  the  other  has 
"  Israel,"  and  is  given  to  J. 

It  is  apparent  here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  that  the  as- 
signment of  verses  and  clauses  is  simply  the  enforcement, 
nolens  volens,  of  an  arbitrary  determination  of  the  critics. 
No  one  would  dream  of  sundering  these  mutually  unre- 
lated scraps  from  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  with  which  they 
are  closely  connected,  but  for  the  application  of  alleged 
criteria  which  the  critics  have  devised  in  other  places 
in  framing  their  hypothesis.  These  are  carried  rigor- 
ously through  at  Avhatever  disturbance  of  the  connec- 
tion or  havoc  of  the  sense,  because  to  abandon  them 
would  be  to  give  up  the  hypothesis.  The  very  least  that 
can  be  said  is  that  this  mincing  work,  to  which  the  critics 
find  themselves  compelled  to  resort  to  so  great  an  extent 
in  Genesis,  and  increasingly  so  in  the  books  that  follow, 
lends  no  suj^port  to  the  hypothesis,  but  is  simply  a  dead 
weight  upon  it.  The  hypothesis  is  plainly  not  an  out- 
growth of  this  and  similar  chapters,  but  is  obtruded  upon 
them  ;  and  the  only  question  is  how  much  lumber  of  this 
sort  it  can  carry  without  signally  breaking  down. 

Elohim  occurs  four  times  in  this  chapter  (vs.  5,  7,  8,  9), 
in  the  address  of  Joseph  to  his  brothers.  As  he  is  no 
longer  acting  the  part  of  an  Egyptian,  he  might  have 
spoken  of  Jehovah  as  consulting  for  the  welfare  of  the 
chosen  race.  But  Elohim  is  equally  appropriate,  since 
the  prominent  thought  here  and  throughout  the  history 
of  Joseph  is  that  it  is  God,  and  not  man,  who  guided  the 
course  of  events  (ver.  8 ;  1.  20). 

MAEKS   OF  E 

1.  ypV^_  Jacob  (ver.  25).  See  ch.  xxxvii.,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  1 ;  ch.  xlii.-xliv.,  Marks  of  E,  No.  5. 

2.  T^pyn  nnn  (anger)  burn  in  one's  eyes.  Only  besides 
xxxi.  35  E. 


492  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

3.  )^'D  lade  (ver.  17) ;  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

4.  TU^  provision  (ver.  21).  See  ch.  xlii.-xliv.,  Marks 
of  E,  No'.  9. 

5.  n3  grain  (ver.  23).  See  ch.  xlii.-xliv.,  Marks  of  E, 
No.  12^ 

EEMOVAL  TO  EGYPT   (CH.   XLVI.    1-27) 

Verses  1-5  are  assigned  to  E  on  account  of  the  back 
reference  in  ver.  5b  to  xlv.  19,  21  (but  if  these  verses  be- 
long to  E),  as  Dillmann  affirms,  ver.  5b  must  be  given  to 
E  likewise),  and  other  criteria ;  only  ver.  la  is  given  to  J 
or  E  because  of  "  Israel  "  and  "  took  his  journey  "  ysi'l. 
This  affords  an  opportunity  for  creating  a  discrepancy. 
Jacob  starts  in  E  (ver.  5)  from  Beersheba,  in  J  from 
some  other  place,  presumably  from  Hebron  (sxxvii.  14), 
and  takes  Beersheba  on  his  way.  It  scarcely  need  be 
stated  that  the  discrepancy  is  purely  the  result  of  the 
critical  partition,  and  has  no  existence  in  the  text  itself. 
In  ver.  2  "  Elohim  "  and  "  visions  of  the  night,"  which 
are  held  to  be  characteristics  of  E,^  conflict  with  "  Israel," 
a  mark  of  J.  The  difficulty  is  adjusted  by  erasing  the 
unwelcome  name  and  tracing  its  insertion  to  E. 

Yerses  6,  7  are  attributed  to  P  on  account  of  words 
and  phrases  which  are  claimed  as  peculiar  to  P,  but  on 
very  slight  grounds  as  has  been  previously  shown.  P's 
last  generally  acknowledged  statement  ^  is  that,  in  con- 
trast to  Esau's  removal  to  Mount  Seir  (xxxvi.  6-8),  Jacob 
dwelt  in  the  land  of  Canaan  (xxxvii.  1),  And  yet  here 
follows,  without  a  word  of  explanation,  the  removal  of 

'  The  repetition  of  tlie  name,  and  the  answer  "  Here  I  am,"  as  Gen. 
xxii.  11,  Ex.  iii.  4,  is  also  claimed  for  B  ;  but  Gen.  xxii.  11  can  only 
be  assigned  to  E  by  manipulating  the  text  and  expunging  "  Jehovah." 

-Two  isolated  and  unexplained  statements  of  Joseph's  age.  when 
tending  flocks  (xxxvii.  2),  and  when  standing  before  Pharaoh  (xli.  46), 
are  given  to  P  by  some  critics,  and  denied  to  him  by  others. 


REMOVAL   TO   EGYPT    (CH.    XLVI.   1-27)  493 

Jacob  and  his  family  to  Egypt ;  and  it  comes  out  in  sub- 
sequent allusions  that  Joseph  was  already  settled  there 
and  married  into  a  priestly  family  (xlvi.  20,  27),  that  he 
was  in  high  favor  with  Pharaoh,  and  it  was  he  who  gave 
his  father  and  brethren  a  possession  in  the  land  of  Egypt 
(xlvii.  7,  11).  But  how  all  this  came  about  P  does  not 
inform  us.  The  critics  are  greatly  exercised  to  account 
for  so  egregious  a  gap  as  this.  Kayser  suggests  that  P 
was  theoretical  rather  than  historical ;  Noldeke  that  R 
omitted  P's  account  because  it  was  contradictory  to  E 
and  J  ;  others,  because  it  agreed  with  theirs.  And  yet 
elsewhere  R  is  careful  to  preserve  even  the  smallest 
scraps  of  P,  though  they  are  quite  superfluous  beside  the 
more  extended  narratives  of  E  or  J,  e.g.,  xix.  29,  and  if 
we  may  believe  the  critics  he  is  not  deterred  by  incon- 
sistencies. 

The  list  of  Jacob's  family  (vs.  8-27)  is  a  critical  puzzle. 
It  is  in  the  style  of  other  genealogies  attributed  to  P, 
and  has  expressions  claimed  as  his,  viz.,  "Paddan-aram  " 
(ver.  15),  "  souls  "  (vs.  15,  18,  22,  25-27),  "  came  out  of 
his  loins  "  (ver.  26).  And  yet  there  are  duplicates  of  it 
in  P  (Ex.  i.  1-5 ;  vi.  14-25 ;  Num.  xxvi.  5  sqq.) ;  Israel 
(ver.  8)  is  a  mark  of  J,  and,  as  Kayser  affirms,  it  has 
too  many  allusions  to  J  and  E  to  admit  of  their  being 
explained  as  interpolations.  Thus  (ver.  12),  "Er  and 
Onan  died  in  the  land  of  Canaan,"  refers  to  xxxviii.  7-10 
J ;  ver.  18,  "  Zilpah,  whom  Laban  gave  to  Leah,"  and 
ver.  25,  "  Bilhah,  whom  Laban  gave  unto  Rachel,"  to  xxix. 
24,  29  ^  E  ;  vs.  20,  27,  Joseph's  marriage  and  sons  to  xli. 
50-52  E.2     So   Hupfeld  attributes  this  list  to  J,  Well- 

'  It  is  with  the  view  of  quietly  evading  this  difficulty  that  Wellhausen 
and  Dillmann  absurdly  sunder  these  verses  from  the  rest  of  ch.  xxix., 
and  give  them  to  P. 

^  Also  (ver.  15)  "  Dinah  "  refers  to  xxx.  31,  if  Kayser  and  Schrader 
are  correct  in  ascribing  ch.  xxxiv.  entire  to  J. 


494  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

Lausen  to  a  later  writer  who  derived  his  materials  from 
P,  or  according  to  Kayser,  from  P  and  J,  or  in  the  opin- 
ion of  Kuenen  one  who  was  acquainted  with  Genesis  in 
its  present  form,  and  with  Tsiim.  xxvi,  ("  Hexateiich,"  p.  68), 
while  Dillmann  follows  Noli-.ke  in  imputing  it  to  P,  but 
worked  over  by  R,  who  supplied  the  additions  from  J 
and  E.  But  such  a  linking  together  of  J,  E,  and  P  as 
we  find  in  this  passage,  and  repeatedly  in  others,  occurs 
too  frequently  to  be  set  aside  by  any  critical  device. 
These  cannot  be  sej)arate  and  independent  documents, 
since  their  alleged  criteria  are  indiscriminately  mingled 
in  the  same  continuous  paragraphs,  and  are  to  all  ap- 
pearance freely  used  by  the  same  writer. 

As  (ver.  8)  this  list  professes  to  give  "  the  names  of  the 
children  of  Israel  who  came  into  Egypt,"  Dillmann  af- 
firms that  the  mention  of  Er  and  Onan  (ver.  12)  implies 
that  they  were  living  at  that  time  (the  clause  which 
speaks  of  their  death  in  Canaan  being,  as  he  contends,  an 
interpolation  from  ch.  xxxviii.),  and  that  they  are  in  fact 
counted  in  making  up  the  number  thirty-three  in  ver.  15. 
He  hence  concludes  that  the  author  of  this  list  is  here  at 
variance  with  ch.  xxxviii.  This  is  a  most  extraordinary 
attempt  to  create  a  discrepancy  in  defiance  of  the  plain 
language  of  the  verse,  by  throwing  out  of  the  text  its  ex- 
plicit statement  on  the  subject.  It  only  shows  Avhat  ex- 
travagances can  be  made  to  result  from  critical  partition. 
Er  and  Onan  are  not  included  in  the  summation  (ver.  15). 
The  number  is  completed  by  adding  Jacob,  who  in  ver. 
8  is  reckoned  one  of  "  the  children  of  Israel "  (in  its  na- 
tional sense),  and  Dinah,  the  total  embracing,  as  is  dis- 
tinctly declared  in  ver.  15,  "  daughters  "  as  well  as  "  sons." 
To  make  out  his  case  Dillmann  is  obliged  here  again  to 
expunge  "  daughters  "  from  the  text. 

A  further  discrepancy  is  alleged  in  the  chronology.  It 
is  said  that  the  antecedent  narratives  of  J  and  E  do  not 


REMOVAL   TO   EGYPT   (CH.    XLVI.   1-27)  495 

allow  time  enovigh  for  the  birth  of  all  the  children  named 
in  this  list  of  P.  This  is  based  on  the  assumption,  which 
even  Wellhansen^  repels,  that  every  individual  person 
named  in  the  list  was  born  before  the  migration  into  Egypt. 
Such  an  inference  might  indeed  be  drawn  from  vs.  8,  20, 
strictly  taken.  But  to  press  the  letter  of  such  general  state- 
ments into  contradiction  with  the  particulars  embraced 
under  them  is  in  violation  of  the  evident  meaning  of  the 
writer.  So  ver.  15  rigorously  interpreted  would  make  Leah 
to  have  borne  thirty-three  children  to  Jacob  in  Paddan- 
aram,  one  of  whom  was  Jacob  himself.  Zilpah  (ver.  18) 
and  Bilhah  (ver.  25)  bare  their  grandsons  as  well  as 
their  sons.  Benjamin  is  included  (xxxv.  24,  26)  among 
Jacob's  sons  born  in  Paddan-aram,  though  his  birth  near 
Ephrath  is  recorded  but  a  few  verses  before.  The  nu- 
merical correspondences  of  the  table,  a  total  of  seventy, 
the  descendants  of  each  maid  precisely  half  those  of  her 
mistress  (Leah  32,  Zilpah  16,  Eachel  14,  Bilhah  7),  sug- 
gest design  and  can  scarcely  be  altogether  accidental. 
And  a  comparison  of  Num.  xxvi.  leads  to  the  belief  that 
regard  was  had  to  the  subsequent  national  organization 
in  constructing  this  table,  and  that  its  design  was  to  in- 
clude those  descendants  of  Jacob  from  whom  permanent 
families  or  tribal  divisions  sprang,  even  if  in  a  few  in- 
stances they  did  not  chance  to  have  been  born  before 
the  descent  into  Egypt.  As  a  rule  Jacob's  sons  gave 
names  to  the  tribes,  and  his  grandsons  to  the  tribal  di- 
visions. To  this,  however,  there  were  some  exceptions. 
Joseph's  sous,  Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  were  adopted  by 
Jacob  as  his  own  (xlviii.  5),  and  tribes  were  called  after 
them.     In   like   manner  (ver.  12),  Hezron  and  Hamul, 

1  Composition  d.  Hexateuchs,  p.  51  :  "  This  list  once  and  again  bursts 
through  the  historic  bounds  of  Genesis."  Critical  consistency  requires 
this  admission  from  those  who  assign  the  numbers  in  xxxvii.  2  and  xli. 
46  to  P,  or  this  document  will  be  in  conflict  with  itself. 


496  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

grandsons  of  Judah,  are  included  in  this  list  as  substi- 
tutes for  his  two  deceased  sons  ;  and  (ver.  21)  ten  sons 
of  Benjamin  '  are  enumerated,  though  some  of  those  who 
are  here  spoken  of  as  sons  were  really  grandsons  (Num. 
xxvi.  40  ;  1  Cliron.  viii.  3,  4).  And  so  no  difficulty  is  created 
by  the  circumstance  that  four  sons  are  ascribed  to  Reu- 
ben, ver.  9,  but  only  two,  xlii.  37.  A  few  names  are  here 
recorded  of  those  who  were  still  in  the  loins  of  their 
fathers  (Heb.  vii.  9,  10)  at  the  time  of  the  migration.  It 
is  no  departure  from  the  usages  of  Hebrew  thought  to 
conceive  of  unborn  children  as  included  in  the  persons 
of  their  parents  (ver.  4b).  The  Septuagint  goes  farther 
in  this  direction  than  the  Hebrew  text  by  inserting  in 
ver.  20  five  sons  and  grandsons  of  Ephraim  and  Manas- 
seh,  thus  making  the  total  in  ver.  27  seventy-five  instead 
of  seventy  ;  and  so  in  the  speech  of  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  14. 

The  statement  in  ver.  27,  that  seventy  of  Jacob's  fam- 
ily came  into  Egypt,  is  repeated  Deut.  x.  22,  which  can 
only  be  accounted  for  on  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis, 
which  makes  this  list  postexilic  and  Deuteronomy  a  prod- 
uct of  the  age  of  Josiah,  by  assuming  that  these  two 
identical  statements  were  made  independently  of  each 
other. 

The  divine  names  in  this  chapter  are  grouped  together 
ill  the  opening  verses  (vs.   1-3).     These  verses,  though 

'  It  has  been  paraded  as  an  absolute  inconsistency  that  Benjamin  is  in 
this  list  spoken  of  as  the  father  of  ten  sons,  whereas  in  the  narrative 
(xliii.  8  ;  xliv.  23  sqq.)  he  is  called  "1^3  lad  :  bnt  Rehoboam  is  called  "1^3 
young  (2  Chron.  xiii,  7)  when  he  was  upward  of  forty  years  of  age  (xii. 
13).  The  epithet  'Jkiji'n  tJie  youngest,  which  is  applied  to  Benjamin 
(xlii.  13,  15,  20  sqq.),  denotes  relative,  not  absolute  age,  and  has  no  ref- 
erence to  size.  Though  Benjamin  was  tenderly  treated  as  the  youngest 
of  the  family,  and  Jacob's  darling,  the  sole  remaining  son  of  his  favor- 
ite wife,  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  he  was  still  in  his  boyhood.  Of 
the  ten  named  in  this  list  as  sprung  from  him,  five  at  least  were  grand- 
."^ons,  and  some  of  the  remainder  may  have  been  born  in  Egypt. 


REMOVAL   TO   EGYPT   (CH.   XLVl.  1-27)  497 

attributed  to  E,  are  filled  with  references  to  former  J 
passages,  which  is  at  variance  with  every  form  of  the  di- 
visive hypothesis.     The  name  "Israel,"  not  only  in  ver. 
la,  which  is  given  to  J,  but  in  ver.  2,  is  a  mark  of  J. 
Jacob's  coming  to  Beersheba,  and  offering  sacrifices  there 
to  the  God  of  his  father  Isaac,  is  in  evident  allusion  to 
the  altar  built  there  by  Isaac  and  the  divine  manifesta- 
tion and  promise  there  made  to  him  (xxvi.   23-25   J). 
And  the  language  which  God  here  addresses  to  Jacob  in 
the  night,  "  I  am  the  God  of  thy  father ;  fear  not.     .     .     . 
I  will  go  down  with  thee,"  is  a  repetition  of  what  he  said 
to  Isaac  likewise  in  the  night,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham 
thy  father ;  fear  not,  for  I  am  with  thee."     "  I  will  make 
of  thee  a  great  nation"  (ver.  3)  is  a  repetition  of  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham  (xii.  2  J).     "  I  will  go  down 
with  thee  into  Egypt ;  and  I  will  also  surely  bring  thee 
up  again  "  (ver.  4),  is  the  renewal  of  the  promise  made 
to  Jacob  himself  on  a  like  occasion  before,  when  he  was 
on  the  point  of  leaving  the  land  of  Canaan  :  "  I  am  with 
thee,  and  will  keep  thee  whithersoever  thou  goest,  and 
will  bring  thee  again  into  this  land  "  (xxviii.  15  J).     This 
obvious  dependence  upon  J  passages  throughout  is  suf- 
ficient to  assure  us  that  there  can  be  no  variance  in  the 
use  of  the  divine  names.     And  in  point  of  fact  there  is 
none.     "  The  God  of  Isaac  "  is  a  designation  equivalent 
to  Jehovah   (xxviii.  13;  xxxii.  10,  E.  V.,ver.  9  J).     And 
there  are  special  reasons  for  joining  with  this  name  the 
term  bsiin  ha-El  (ver.  3),  from  its  association  with  the  name 
"  Israel,"  here  significantly  employed,  from  its  allusion 
to  XXXV.  11,  where  the  promises  of  a  multiplied  offspring 
and  of  the  gift  of  Canaan  were  made  to  him  on  his  return 
to  this  land,  which  are  now  emphatically  repeated  as  he 
is  again  about   to   leave   it,  and   from  its  meaning  the 
Mighty    One,  with    its   assurance,   just   then   especially 
needed,  of  omnipotent  protection  and  blessing  ;  and  a 
82 


498  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

like  assurance  is  involved  in  Elobim  (ver.  2),  the  God  of 
creation  and  of  universal  providence. 


MARKS   OF   J    (VER.  la) 

1.  ^'D^  journeyed.     See  Diction  of  ch.  xx.,  No.  1. 

2.  Israel.  See  cli.  xxxvii.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  1 ;  ch.  xlii.- 
xliv.,  No.  5. 

MAEKS   OF   E    (VS.  lb-5a) 

1.  Night  Vision.     See  ch.  xx.,  Marks  of  E,  No.  4. 

2.  "lir^b  Qiil)  make  a  nation.  See  ch.  xxi.  1-21,  Marks 
of  E,  No.  12! 

3.  rril  to  go  doiun ;  this  form  of  the  infinitive  occurs 
but  once  besides  in  the  Hexateuch,  viz.,  ny"^  to  know  (Ex. 
ii.  4  E).  A  form  of  so  rare  occurrence  in  this  document 
cannot  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  it. 

MARKS   OF  p 

1.  tl'^y^  goods,  WD'y  had  gotten  (ver.  6).  See  ch.  xii.  5, 
Marks  of ^P,  No.  2." 

2.  inii;  ^^^1  his  seed  luith  him  (vs.  6,  7)  ;  while  equiva- 
lent phrases  occur  repeatedly  in  all  the  documents,  this 
])recise  form  of  speech  is  found  but  twice  besides  in  the 
Hexateuch  (Gen.  xxviii.  4 ;  Num.  xviii.  19  P). 

3.  3py;;i  Jacob.     See  ch.  xlii.-xliv.,  Marks  of  E,  No.  5. 

4.  ^^2^  first-born  (ver.  8).  See  ch.  xxv.  12-18,  Marks 
of  P,  No!  4. 

5.  Paddan-aram  (ver.  15).  See  ch.  xxv.  19-34,  Marks 
of  P,  No.  4. 

6.  irs:  souls  (vs.  15,  18,  22,  25-27).  See  ch.  xii.  5, 
Marks  of  P,  No.  3. 

7.  iyrj  "issa'i  came  oid  of  his  thigh  (ver.  26)  ;  this  pre- 
cise form  of  expression  occurs  in   the  Hexateuch   but 


SETTLEMENT  IN  GOSHEN  (CII.  XLVI.  28-XLVII.  11)    499 

once  besides  (Ex.  i.  5  P),  where  it  is  borrowed  from  the 
I)resent  passage ;  an  equivalent  expression  is  found  in 
XXXV,  11  P,  'H'lSbn'a  i?:|^  come  out  of  thy  loins,  and  one 
closely  related  in  xv.  4  J,  '7\'^^i:^'n  ^'T^  come  out  of  thy 
bonvJs.  The  same  conception  is  involved  when  an  oath 
relating  to  posterity  (xxiv.  2  J),  or  to  be  fulfilled  after  the 
death  of  him  who  has  imposed  it  (xlvii.  29  J),  is  taken 
with  the  hand  under  the  thigh. 

SETTLEMENT  IN  GOSHEN  (CH.  XLVI.  28-XLVII.  11) 

DiUmann  assigns  xlvi.  28-xlvii.  5a,  6b,  to  J  ;  and  xlvii. 
5b,  6a,  7-11,  to  P. 

It  is  argued  that  xlvi.  28  sqq.  belongs  to  a  different 
document  from  the  preceding,  because  in  ver.  6  (P)  Jacob 
and  his  family  had  already  come  into  Egypt,  whereas  in 
ver.  28  he  is  still  on  the  way  thither,  and  sends  Judah 
before  him  to  Joseph  to  obtain  the  necessary  directions 
about  admission  to  Goshen.  This,  it  is  said,  is  J's  ac- 
count ;  and  according  to  Wellhausen  it  connects  directly 
with  ver.  5.  But  that  belongs  to  E.  According  to  the 
usual  method  of  Hebrew  writing,  a  summary  statement  of 
the  journey  is  made  at  the  outset  (vs.  5,  6),  and  the  de- 
tails are  introduced  afterward  (vs.  28  sqq.).  These  the 
critics  erect  into  two  separate  accounts,  as  they  are  ac- 
customed to  do  elsewhere  and  with  just  as  httle  reason. 

Wellhausen  finds  a  discrepancy  between  the  modest 
request  (ver.  34  J)  for  the  land  of  Goshen  and  the  grand 
offer  previously  made  by  Pharaoh  (xlv.  18  E)  of  the 
best  portion  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  But,  as  Dillmann  ex- 
plains, this  is  not  the  meaning  of  Pharaoh's  offer.  He 
lias  no  thought  of  their  taking  up  their  abode  in  Egypt. 
His  proposal  is  not  to  present  them  with  a  choice  part 
of  the  country  as  their  residence,  but  to  supply  their  ne- 
cessities during  the  prevalence   of  the   famine.      "  The 


500  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

good  of  the  land,"  which  he  says  that  he  will  give  them, 
denotes,  as  is  plain  from  vs.  20,  23 ;  xxiv.  10  ;  2  Kin.  viii. 
9,  the  good  things,  the  best  and  choicest  products  of  the 
land.  The  sons  of  Jacob  make  an  advance  upon  the 
promise  given  them  by  the  king,  when  instructed  by 
Joseph  they  ask  that  Goshen  may  be  assigned  to  them 
to  dwell  in.  And  when  in  response  to  this  request  the 
king  assures  them  that  they  may  dwell  in  Goshen,  "  in 
the  best  of  the  land  "  (xlvii.  6),  he  uses  a  different  term 
from  that  contained  in  his  original  offer  (not  aili:,  but 

The  critics  allege  that  Pharaoh's  invitation  to  Joseph's 
father  and  brethren  in  ch.  xlv.  E  is  here  entirely  ignored, 
and  their  coming  is  announced  to  the  king  (xlvi.  31 ; 
xlvii.  1),  as  something  altogether  new  and  unexpected  ; 
this  must,  therefore,  be  a  variant  account  of  the  matter 
as  given  by  J,  But  this  is  by  no  means  the  case.  Pha- 
raoh had  invited  them  to  come,  and  now  Joseph  goes  to 
tell  him  that  they  have  arrived.  The  invitation  is  ac- 
cepted ;  what  occasion  was  there  to  say  more  ? 

The  attempt  is  also  made  to  produce  two  divergent 
accounts  of  the  reception  by  Pharaoh.  The  critics  em- 
l^loy  for  this  purpose  their  customary  method  of  making 
the  part  stand  for  the  whole,  and  arraying  successive  in- 
cidents against  each  other  as  though  they  were  variant 
reports  of  the  same  transaction.  Joseph  first  presents 
five  of  his  brethren  to  the  king  that  they  may  tell  him 
their  occupation  and  have  an  appropriate  residence  as- 
signed them.  He  then  presents  his  father,  causa  honoris, 
for  a  formal  interview.  This  is  all  natural  enough.  The 
complaint  is  made  that  the  father,  as  the  head  of  the 
clan,  ought  to  be  have  been  presented  first.  The  objec- 
tor may  settle  that  matter  with  the  historian,  or,  if  he 
pleases,  with  K.  The  sons  were  the  active  members 
of  the  family,  and  the  reason  given  in  the  narrative  itself 


SETTLEMENT  IN  GOSHEN  (CH.  XLVI.  38-XLVII.  11)     501 

for  the  order  of  procedure  is  sufficient.  How  the  sous 
were  deferred  to  in  matters  of  importance  affecting  the 
family  is  plain  from  other  narratives  likewise  (cf.  xxiv. 
50, 53,  55,  59 ;  xsxiv.  5, 11,  13).  Moreover,  the  critics  will 
have  it  that  there  was  but  one  presentation  ;  according 
to  J  (vs.  2  sqq.)  Joseph  presented  his  brothers  unto 
Pharaoh ;  on  the  contrary,  P  states  (vs.  7-11)  that  it  was 
his  father  that  Joseph  presented.  The  simple  fact  is 
that  he  presented  both  at  different  times,  as  the  nar- 
rative declares ;  so  there  is  no  discrepancy  whatever. 
Hupfeld  evidently  saw  none,  as  he  does  not  separate  vs. 
7-11  from  the  preceding  verses  ;  neither  did  Delitzsch  in 
the  first  four  editions  of  his  "  Comjuentary." 

Kayser  gives  ver.  11  to  E,  on  account  of  its  manifest 
connection  with  vs.  5,  6.  Wellhausen,  Dillmann,  and 
others  reverse  the  argument,  and  give  vs.  5b,  6a,  to  P  on 
account  of  their  correspondence  in  thought  and  expres- 
sion with  ver.  11.  This  gives  an  opportunity  to  claim 
that  J  and  P  use  different  designations  for  the  territory 
assigned  to  Israel ;  what  the  former  calls  Goshen  (vs.  4, 
6b),  the  latter  denominates  the  land  of  Eameses  (ver.  11). 
Yet  "  the  land  of  Rameses  "  is  found  only  in  this  single 
passage ;  it  is  called  "  Goshen  "  in  ver.  27  P,  where  a 
critical  process  is  necessary  to  eliminate  it,  and,  as  Kay- 
ser observes,  Eameses  occm-s  in  Ex.  i.  11  E  ;  xii.  87  J,  as 
the  name  of  a  city,  from  which  the  surrounding  region 
might  readily  derive  its  appellation  ;  and  it  is  admitted 
that  the  land  of  Rameses  and  Goshen  have  precisely  the 
same  signification. 

The  authority  of  the  LXX.  is  here  adduced  to  justify 
the  critical  severance  of  vs.  5,  6.  The  LXX.  have  here, 
as  so  frequently  elsewhere,  rearranged  the  text  for  rea- 
sons of  their  own,  which  in  this  instance  are  quite  appar- 
ent. In  order  to  bring  Pharaoh's  answer  into  more  ex- 
act correspondence  with  the  request  of  Joseph's  brothers, 


502  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

they  limit  it  to  ver.  6b,  wliicli  they  attach  to  the  opening 
words  of  ver.  5 ;  and  then  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
clauses  which  have  been  passed  over,  vs.  5b,  6a  are  intro- 
duced by  the  following  insertion,  "  And  Jacob  and  his  sons 
came  into  Egypt  to  Joseph,  and  Pharaoh  the  king  of 
Egypt  heard  it ;  and  Pharaoh  spake  to  Joseph,  saying." 
The  critics  eagerly  catch  at  this,  and  claim  that  it  supplies 
a  missing  portion  of  the  original  text  of  P.  But  surely  no 
unbiassed  person  would  think  of  substituting  this  for  the 
Masoretic  text  of  these  verses. 

MAKES   OF  P 

1.  The  statement  of  age  (ver.  9).  See  ch.  vi.-ix., 
Marks  of  P,  No.  2 ;  ch.  xvi..  No.  1. 

2.  i:o  i^n  1T3';'  tlie  days  of  the  years  of  tlie  life  of  (vs.  8, 
9).  See  ch.  xxiii.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  5.  The  same  phrase 
also  2  Sam.  xix.  35  (E.  V.,  ver.  34). 

3.  Qin^i'a  pilgrimage  (ver.  9).  See  ch.  xvii.,  Marks  of 
P,  No.  8.'" " 

4.  nins;  possession  (ver.  11).  See  ch.  xvii.,  Marks  of 
P,No.Y'^ 

MAEKS   OF   J 

1.  'T''lS^2"b:?  bS2  fell  on  his  nech  (xlvi.  29) ;  only  besides 
in  J  xxxiii.  4 ;  in  xlv.  14  it  is  cut  out  of  an  E  connection 
on  account  of  this  very  phrase. 

2.  Israel  (xlvi.  29,  30).  See  ch,  xxxvii.,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  1 ;  ch.  xlii.-xliv.,  No.  5. 

3.  oysn  this  time,  E.  V.,  now  (ver.  30).  See  ch.  xviii., 
xix.,  Marks  of  J,  No.  9. 

4.  TI  Tjliy  thou  art  yet  alive  (ver.  30).  The  repetition 
of  this  and  equivalent  expressions  in  this  narrative  is 
due  on  the  one  hand  to  Joseph's  solicitude  about  his 
father,  and  on  the  other  his  father's  long-continued  ap- 


SETTLEMENT  IN  GOSHEN  (CH.  XLVI.  28-XLVII.  11)     503 

preliensiou  that  Joseph  was  dead.  It  is  the  natural  way 
of  expressing  the  thought,  and  cannot  with  any  propriety 
be  classed  as  the  characteristic  of  any  particular  docu- 
ment. It  is  found  besides  hi  J  (xliii.  7,  27,  28),  in  E 
(xlv.  3,  26),  and  in  ver.  28,  which  is  cut  out  of  an  E  con- 
nection and  given  to  J  ;  also  in  E  (Ex.  iv.  18) ;  in  D  or 
Ed.  (Deut.  xxxi.  27)  ;  in  other  books,  1  Sam.  xx.  14 ;  2 
Sam.  xii.  22;  xviii.  14;  1  Kin.  xx.  32. 

5.  D'^liys'a/^'om  youth  {yer.  34).  The  word  "youth" 
occurs  but  once  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  with  this 
preposition  (Gen.  viii.  21  J),  and  but  twice  without  it 
(Lev.  xxii.  13  P ;  Num.  xxx.  4  (E.  V.,  ver.  3))  commonly 
referred  to  P,  though  Dillmann  is  disposed  to  assign  it  to 
a  code  of  laws  which  he  denominates  S.  In  other  books 
of  the  Bible  "  from  youth  "  occurs  repeatedly ;  and  it  is 
plainly  not  the  peculiar  property  of  any  one  writer. 

6.  nnyin  abomination  (ver.  34);  in  the  Hexateuch  be- 
sides, xhii.  32  ;  Ex.  viii.  22  (E.  V.,  ver.  26)  J ;  Lev.  xviii. 
22,  26,  27,  29,  30  ;  xx.  13,  and  repeatedly  in  Deuteron- 
omy. 

7.  Si'^sn  2)rese7ifed  (xlvii.  2)  ;  besides  in  Hexateuch, 
xxx.  38 ;  xxxiii.  15 ;  xliii.  9  J ;  Ex.  x.  24  E ;  Deut. 
xxviii.  56  D.  That  'T''a?;n  is  used  in  ver.  7  P  in  the 
same  sense  is  no  indication  of  a  different  document, 
since  it  is  used  likewise  in  J  (Num.  xi.  24). 

8.  ^33  heavy,  sore  (ver.  4).  See  ch.  xlii.-xliv.,  Marks 
of  J,  No.  14. 

9.  ninya  in  order  that  (xlvi.  34).  See  xxi.  22-34, 
Marksof  E,  No.  3. 

10.  Da  ...  Da  hoth  .  .  .  and  (ver.  34)  ;  be- 
sides in  J  (xxiv,  25,  44 ;  xliii.  8 ;  xliv.  16 ;  xlvii.  3 ;  1.  9)  ; 
in  J,  based  on  E  and  worked  over  by  Pt  (xlvii.  19) ;  an 
ancient  writing  inserted  in  J  (Deut.  xxxii.  25) ;  in  E 
(Gen.  xxxii.  20,  E.  V.,  ver.  19 ;  Ex.  xii.  32 ;  xviii.  18) ;  in 
P  (Num.  xviii.  3). 


504  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

Jacob  commissions  Judah  (xlvi.  28)  rather  than  Reu- 
ben, because  of  the  confidence  inspired  bj  his  character, 
which  made  him  an  acknowledged  leader  among  his 
brethren  (xUx.  8),  as  Peter  among  the  apostles.  This  is 
not  the  invention  of  a  writer  partial  to  Judah,  and  so  a 
criterion  of  one  document  in  distinction  from  another. 

Joseph's  akrangements  in  egypt  (ch.  xlyii.  12-27) 

An  account  is  here  given  of  the  measures  adopted  by 
Joseph  during  the  famine.  The  only  source  of  supply 
was  the  stores  of  grain,  which  as  the  chief  officer  of  the 
government  he  had  amassed  from  the  over-production  of 
the  seven  years  of  plenty  (xli.  34-36,  47-49).  In  pur- 
chasing their  necessary  food  during  the  years  of  scarcity 
that  followed,  the  people  parted  first  with  all  their  money, 
then  with  all  their  cattle  and  beasts  of  burden,  and  finally 
with  their  lands.^  Thus  the  land  became  the  property 
of  the  king  ;  and  it  became  the  established  rule  in  Egypt 
that  the  people  should  pay  to  him,  as  the  owner  of  the 
land,  a  rental  of  one-fifth  of  its  produce. 

"VVellhausen  says  that  this  peculiar  passage  (vs.  13-26) 
has  no  proper  connection  either  in  E  or  J ;  he  assumes 
that  it  originally  had  its  place  in  a  parallel  by  J  to  ch. 
xli.  Dillmann  thinks  that  it  was  written  as  the  continu- 
ation of  ch.  xli.,  since  ver.  13  connects  with  xli.  55,  56. 

The  intimate  connection  between  this  passage  and  ch. 

'The  LXX.,  followed  by  the  Samaritan  and  the  Vulgate,  read 
(ver.  21):  "He  enslaved  them  as  servants  to  him,"  i.e..  Pharaoh 
a'^IDy^  irii5  T^nyn,  as  though  after  disposing  of  their  lands  the  peo- 
ple sold  themselves.  This  variant  text  implies  that  Joseph  took  the 
people  at  their  word  when  they  offered  (ver.  19)  to  become  bond-ser- 
vants to  Pharaoh  for  the  sake  of  bread.  It  agrees  also  with  vs.  23,  25. 
The  Hebrew  reads,  "  He  removed  them  to  cities"  D'^"iy?  iri55  T^Dyjl, 
that  they  might  be  nearer  the  storehouses,  and  their  wants  more  easily 
supplied. 


Joseph's  akrangemexts  (ch.  xlvii.  12-37)     505 

xli.  is  obvious,  and  it  may  be  said  to  continue  the  narra- 
tive of  that  chapter.  Chapter  xli.  records  how  Joseph 
stored  up  the  grain  dui'ing  the  years  of  plenty  ;  and  when 
the  years  of  dearth  began  to  come,  the  people  went  to  him 
to  buy  their  food.  Then  the  passage  before  us  tells  how 
the  people  were  impoverished,  as  the  famine  continued 
from  year  to  year,  by  the  purchases  that  they  were 
obliged  to  make.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that 
it  originally  formed  a  part  of  that  chapter,  and  is  now 
out  of  its  proper  place.  The  narrative  of  Joseph's  deal- 
ings with  the  Egyptians  was  interrupted  in  order  to  tell 
of  the  coming  of  his  brothers,  and  to  explain  how  this 
resulted  in  the  removal  of  Jacob  and  his  family  to  Egypt 
and  their  settlement  there.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  princi- 
pal reason  why  the  famine  was  spoken  of  at  all.  When 
this  recital  is  ended,  the  unfinished  subject  of  Joseph's 
dealings  with  the  Egyptians  is  resumed  and  completed. 

And  the  details  here  given  upon  this  subject  are  not  so 
much  designed  to  impart  information  about  Egypt  as  to 
exhibit  by  contrast  the  providential  care  extended  over 
the  chosen  race  in  this  period  of  sore  distress.  While 
the  Egyptians  were  reduced  to  the  greatest  straits,  "  Jo- 
seph nourished  his  father,  and  his  brethren,  and  all  his 
father's  household  with  bread"  (ver.  12).  "And  Israel 
dwelt  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  land  of  Goshen  ;  and 
they  gat  them  possessions  therein,  and  were  fruitful  and 
multiplied  exceedingly "  (ver.  27).  Verses  12  and  27, 
from  which  the  critics  propose  to  sunder  this  paragraph, 
are  thus  essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  it ;  and 
its  proper  place  is  where  it  now  stands  between  them. 

This  paragraph  likewise  prepares  the  way  for  Ex.  i.  8. 
The  oppression  of  Israel  by  a  king  "  who  knew  not  Jo- 
seph," is  a  manifest  allusion  to  the  service  which  he  had 
rendered  to  the  nation,  and  to  the  advantage  which  he 
had  secured  for  the  king,  as  here  detailed. 


506  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

Kayser  refers  vs.  12-26  to  J,  Schrader  to  E  ;  Dillmann 
thinks  that  the  origiual  account  was  by  E,  this  was  re- 
written by  J,  and  then  worked  over  by  E.  Verse  27  he 
gives  to  P,  except  the  words  "  the  land  of  Goshen ;  " 
Kayser  gives  ver.  27a  to  J  on  account  of  this  phrase,  and 
27b  to  P.  Knobel  contends  that  ver.  27  must  belong  to 
the  preceding  paragraph,  to  which  it  is  attached  with  the 
view  of  contrasting  the  condition  of  Israel  with  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  that  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  assigned  to  P, 
notwithstanding  its  use  of  P  expressions  ;  especially  as 
it  also  has  the  J  phrase,  "  land  of  Goshen,"  and  it  dupli- 
cates the  P  verse  (Ex.  i.  7).  This  blending  of  the  al- 
leged characteristics  of  different  documents  simj^ly  shows 
that  what  the  critics  regard  as  criteria  of  distinct  writers 
are  freely  used  by  the  same  writer. 

MAKES   OF   E 

1.  The  accurate  account  of  Egyptian  matters,  and  the 
analogy  between  vs.  25,  26,  and  xli.  34.  But  these  afford 
no  indication  of  the  existence  of  distinct  documents. 

2.  bsbs  nourished  (ver.  12).  This  verb  is  here  used 
with  evident  reference  to  its  occurrence  in  Joseph's 
promise  (xlv.  11),  which  he  now  fulfils.  That  these  pas- 
sages are  to  be  attributed  to  the  same  writer  is  readily  ad- 
mitted, but  not  to  a  writer  E,  distinct  from  the  author  of 
xlvi,  6-xlvii.  11,  which  the  critics  divide  between  P  and 
J.  According  to  this  partition,  E  here  records  Joseph's 
fulfilment  of  his  promise  to  nourish  his  father  and  his 
family  in  Egypt,  without  having  mentioned  the  fact  that 
they  had  an-ived  in  Egypt,  or  even  that  they  had  accepted 
the  invitation  to  come  thither. 

3.  ptn  prevailed  (ver.  20),  as  over  against  "133  sore,  se- 
vere (ver.  13  J).  See  ch.  xlii.-xliv..  No.  14.  That  two 
different  words  are  used  in  different  passages  to  describe 


Joseph's  arrangements  (ch.  xlvii.  12-27)    507 

the  intensity  of  the  famine  is  no  indication  of  a  diversity 
of  writers,  unless  a  writer  can  never  vary  his  expressions. 


MARKS   OF  J 

1.  ins  sore  (ver.  13).     See  ch.  xlii.-xliv.,  No.  14 

2.  ^TaiT^  found  (ver.  14).  The  participle  chances  to 
occur  but  twice  besides  in  the  Hexateuch  (Gen.  xix.  15 
J ;  Deut.  XX.  11  D),  but  the  verb  is  of  frequent  occur- 
rence, and  is  found  in  all  the  so-called  documents. 

3.  'Dr\  fail,  be  spent  (vs.  15,  18) ;  besides  in  J  Lev.  xxvi. 
20  (so  Dillm.) ;  Num.  xxxii.  13  ;  Josh.  iv.  10, 11 ;  E,  Num. 
xiv.  33 ;  Josh.  iv.  1 ;  v.  8  ;  x.  20 ;  JE,  Josh.  iii.  16, 17  ;  viii. 
24 ;  P,  Lev.  xxv.  29 ;  Num.  xiv.  35  ;  xvii.  28  (E.  V.,  ver. 
13) ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  8 ;  D,  Deut.  ii.  14,  15,  16 ;  Ed,  Deut. 
xxxi.  24,  30 ;  Josh.  v.  6. 

4.  Horses  (ver.  17).  It  is  alleged  that  J  speaks  of 
horses  and  horsemen  in  Egypt,  but  E  does  not.  This  is 
said  to  indicate  that  E  was  better  acquainted  with  Egyp- 
tian affairs,  as  the  monuments  give  no  evidence  of  the  ex- 
istence of  horses  there  until  after  the  Hyksos  period; 
and  although  Diodorus  Siculus  speaks  of  horsemen  in 
the  army  of  Sesostris,  horses  would  seem  to  have  been 
used  only  for  chariots  in  the  first  instance,  and  cavalry 
to  belong  to  a  later  period  (Isa.  xxxi.  1 ;  xxxvi.  9).  That 
they  have  not  yet  been  found  upon  the  monuments  of  so 
earl}^  a  date  is  a  negative  testimony  which  is  liable  at 
au}^  time  to  be  set  aside  by  some  fresh  discovery,  and  is 
of  no  force  against  the  positive  statements  of  the  passage 
under  consideration  and  others  like  it.  Moreover,  there 
is  no  variance  between  the  passages  attributed  to  J  and  to 
E.  It  is  observable  that  in  the  presents  made  by  Pha- 
raoh to  Abram  (xii.  16  J)  mention  is  made  of  sheep  and 
oxen  and  asses  and  camels,  but  not  of  horses.  J,  how- 
ever, speaks  (xlvi.  29)  of  Joseph  making  ready  his  chariot. 


508  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

which  implies  horses ;  and  more  explicitly  (1.  9),  of  his 
going  with  chariots  and  horsemen  to  bury  his  father. 
Dillmann  remarks  that  while  according  to  E  wagons 
were  sent  for  Jacob  by  Pharaoh's  direction  (xlv.  19,  21, 
27 ;  xlvi,  5),  they  may  have  been  drawn  by  other  animals 
than  horses ;  and  at  any  rate  he  is  disposed  to  think  that 
these  verses  though  in  an  E  context  may  have  been  in- 
serted by  R.  E,  however,  speaks  of  Joseph's  chariot  (xli. 
43).  And  Ex.  xiv.  is  divided  on  the  assumption  that  vs. 
6,  7,  which  speak  of  Pharaoh's  chariots,  are  from  E,  but 
vs.  9,  17,  18,  23,  26,  28,  which  mention  horsemen  as  well 
as  chariots,  are  from  J.  The  latter  is  supposed  to  have  put 
a  wrong  interpretation  upon  the  words  "the  horse  and 
his  rider," *in  the  Song  of  Moses  (Ex.  xv.  1),  which  is  al- 
leged to  refer  to  charioteers,  not  to  horsemen.  This 
whole  theory  is  spoiled,  however,  by  Josh.  xxiv.  6  E, 
which  expressly  says  that  the  horsemen  as  well  as  the 
chariots  of  the  Egyptians  pursued  Israel  into  the  Red 
Sea.  Dr.  Dillmann  tries  to  evade  this  result  by  saying 
that  "  chariots  and  horsemen "  cannot  be  from  E,  and 
must  therefore  have  been  inserted  by  R. 

The  case  then  stands  thus :  In  vs.  6,  7,  of  Ex.  xiv., 
chariots  are  spoken  of  Avithout  separate  mention  of  horse- 
men, though  both  are  joined  together  throughout  the 
rest  of  the  chapter.  This  is  made  a  pretext  for  assigning 
those  verses  to  E  in  distinction  from  J,  and  inferring 
that  E  never  speaks  of  horsemen.  But  horsemen  are 
spoken  of  along  with  chariots  in  the  E  verse  Josh.  xxiv. 
6 ;  this  being  contrary  to  the  critic's  assumption  the 
words  are  stricken  out  and  declared  to  be  an  interpola- 
tion by  R,  And  this  is  all  the  ground  there  is  for  the 
alleged  variance  between  J  and  E  in  this  particular. 

5.  nstj?  end  (ver.  21)  ;  besides  in  J,  Gen.  xix.  4 ;  xlvii. 
2 ;  Josh.  ix.  16  ;  in  E,  Ex.  xix.  12 ;  Num.  xx.  16  ;  xxii.  36, 
41 ;  xxiii.  13  ;  in  JE,  Josh.  iii.  2,  8, 15  ;  iv.  19 ;  in  D,  Deut. 


Joseph's  arrangements  (ch.  xlvii.  12-27)    509 

xiii.  8  (E.  v.,  ver.  7);  xiv.  28  ;  xxviii.  49,  64;  xsx.  4;  in 
Bd,  Deut.  iv.  32 ;  Josh.  xiii.  27  ;  in  P,  Gen.  viii.  3b  ;  xxiii. 
9  ;  Ex.  xiii.  20 ;  xvi.  35 ;  xxvi.  5,  28 ;  Num.  xi.  1 ;  xxxiii. 
6,  37;  xxxiv.  3;  Josh.  xv.  1,  2,  5,  8,  21 ;  xviii.  15,  16,  19; 
later  addition  to  P,  Ex.  xxxvi.  12,  33. 

6.  pn  only  (vs.  22,  26).  See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  7. ' 

7.  ""Siya  "jH  NStt  find  favor  in  the  eyes  of.  See  ch.  vi. 
1-8,  Marks  of  J^  No.  10 ;  ch.  xviii.,  xix.,  No.  28. 

8.  "Jiikn  ?13|?'Q  possession  of  flocks,  IJPSri  Hj^'Q  possession 
of  herds  (ver.  17),  nianan  T\^'p'n  possession  of  cattle  (ver. 
18) ;  only  once  besides  in  the  Pentateuch  (xxvi.  14  J). 

9.  ni^  parts  (ver.  24) ;  only  once  besides  in  the  Penta- 
teuch in  this  sense  (xliii.  34  J). 

The  occurrence  of  a  few  unusual  words  in  this  para- 
graph need  create  no  difficulty  as  to  its  authorship,  un- 
less upon  the  assumption  that  no  writer  can  use  a  word 
in  one  place  which  he  has  not  used  elsewhere.  The  fol- 
lowing are  noted  by  Dillmann  :  Jinb  fainted  (ver.  13),  but 
once  besides  in  the  Old  Testament  (Prov.  xxvi.  18) ;  DBS 
fail  (vs.  15,  16),  only  besides,  Ps.  Ixxvii.  9 ;  Isa.  xvi.  4 ; 
xxix.  20 ;  bry^fed  (ver.  17),  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  precisely  the  same  sense  ;  it  is  found  twice  besides 
in  the  Hexateuch,  where  it  means  "  to  lead ;  "  UCilD  be  deso- 
late (ver.  19),  in  the  Kal  forjn  but  once  besides  in  the 
Hexateuch  (Lev.  xxvi.  32);  sn  lo  !  (ver.  23),  nowhere  else 
in  the  Hexateuch,  and  but  once  besides  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

MARKS   OF   P    (VER.    27) 

1.  "Land  of  Egypt"  with  "land  of  Goshen;"  but 
this  is  no  mere  superfluous  repetition,  and  as  such  indi- 
cative of  the  blending  of  two  separate  accounts.  Israel 
was  settled  in  the  country  of  Egypt  and  the  province  of 
Goshen. 


510  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

2.  rnSD  had  possessions.     See  ch.  xxxiv.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  4.  '  '"■' 

3.  T\2y\  nns   were  fruitful   and   multiplied.      See   ch. 
Ti.-ix.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  15. 


JACOB  CHARGES   JOSEPH   AND    ADOPTS    HIS    SONS   (CH.   XLVII. 
38-XLVIII.  22) 

The  critics  generally  agree  in  giving  xlvii.  28 ;  xlviii. 
3-6,  to  P,  and  xlvii.  29-31  to  J.  There  is  less  agree- 
ment in  the  partition  of  the  remainder  of  ch.  xlviii.,  viz., 
whether  vs.  1,  2  belong  to  J  (Schrader),  E  (Wellhausen), 
or  2b  to  J  and  1,  2a  to  E  (Dillmann) ;  ver.  7  to  P  (Hupfeld, 
Wellhausen,  Dillmann),  or  a  gloss  (Schrader,  Kayser) ; 
vs.  8-22  to  E  (Hupfeld,  Schrader,  AVellhausen) ;  or  vs.  9a, 
10b,  11,  12,  15,  16,  20  (in  part),  21,  22,  to  E,  and  vs.  9b, 
10a,  13, 14, 17-19,  20b,  to  J  (Dillmann) ;  Kuenen  '  regards 
vs.  13,  14,  17-19  as  a  later  interpolation,  and  gives  the 
rest  to  E. 

Hupfeld  claims  that  there  are  most  evident  signs  of 
the  diversity  of  the  accounts  at  the  close  of  Jacob's  his- 
tory in  respect  to  his  final  charges  to  his  sons  and  his 
burial.  And  Wellhausen  adds  that  there  is  scarcely  a 
passage  in  Genesis  where  the  strata  of  the  sources  are  so 
palpable  as  in  the  latter  part  of  ch.  xlvii.  and  the  first  of 
ch.  xlviii.  In  xlvii.  28,  he  says,  there  is  a  beginning  by 
P,  in  ver.  29  another  by  J,  and  in  xlviii.  1  a  third  begin- 
ning of  the  very  same  history  by  E.  But  the  fact  is  that 
there  is  no  diversity  of  sources  here  whatever;  all  is 
linked  together  as  one  regularly  unfolding  and  continu- 
ous narrative.  The  statement  of  the  full  age  of  a  patri- 
arch always  immediately  precedes  the  account  of  his 
death  ;  so  of  Noah,  ix.  29,  Abraham,  xxv.  7,  and  Isaac 
XXXV.  28.  In  conformity  with  this  usage  the  statement 
'  Hexateuch,  p.  146. 


ADOPTION  OF  Joseph's  sons  (xlvii.  28-xlviii.  22)   511 

of  Jacob's  age  (xlvii.  28)  is  followed  by  tlie  meutiou  of 
his  approaching  death,  in  view  of  which  he  sends  for 
Joseph  and  gives  him  direction  respecting  his  burial,  just 
as  the  mention  of  Joseph's  age  (1.  22,  23)  is  followed  by 
a  similar  charge  to  his  brethren  respecting  the  disposition 
of  his  body  (vs.  24,  25).  Ch.  xlvii.  28  is  thus  plainly  pre- 
liminary to  vs.  29-31,  which  latter  is  not  a  variant  ac- 
count of  the  same  transaction  as  xlix.  29-32 ;  this  be- 
longs to  a  subsequent  occasion,  and  to  an  interview  of 
Jacob  with  all  his  sons  and  not  with  Joseph  only.  And 
the  visit  of  Joseph  to  his  father  in  xlviii.  1  is  not  identi- 
cal with  that  described  in  the  preceding  verses,  but,  as  is 
expressly  declared,  occurred  later ;  Joseph  came,  not  as 
before,  on  his  father's  invitation,  but  of  his  own  motion 
on  hearing  of  his  father's  increased  illness ;  and  the  sub- 
ject of  the  interview  is  altogether  different,  concerning 
not  Jacob's  burial  but  the  adoption  and  blessing  of  Jo- 
seph's sons. 

Moreover,  xlvii.  29-31  cannot  be  sundered  from  ch. 
xlviii.  The  opening  words  of  xlviii.  1,  "  And  it  came  to 
pass  after  these  things,"  is  an  explicit  reference  to  what 
immediately  precedes.  The  critics  tell  us  that  this  is  a 
formula  belonging  to  E ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  E  with 
which  to  connect  it.  Dillmann  finds  traces  of  E  in  xlvii. 
12-27,  but  derives  this  paragraph  in  its  present  form 
from  J,  and  besides,  he  holds  that  it  has  been  transposed 
from  its  original  position  at  the  end  of  ch.  xli.  Accord- 
ingly the  last  statement  in  E  is  xlvi.  5a,  "  and  Jacob  rose 
up  from  Beersheba  "  to  go  to  Egypt. 

And  in  addition  to  this  forjual  reason  there  is  a  ma- 
terial one,  which  is  still  more  decisive.  The  effect  of 
separating  ch.  xlviii.  from  the  verses  that  immediately 
precede  is  that  while  P  and  E  record  Jacob's  adoption 
of  Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  J  makes  no  mention  of  it, 
and  so  does  not  explain  how  they  came  to  be  included 


512  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

iu  the  number  of  the  tribes,  as  the}^  are  ever  after  in  J 
as  well  as  E  and  P.  Wellliausen  recognizes  this,  and 
admits  that  the  interview  of  Jacob  with  Joseph  in  xlvii. 
29-31  is  incomplete  ;  and  that  J  must  likewise  have  con- 
tained a  parallel  to  ch.  xlviii.,  only  R  has  not  seen  fit  to 
preserve  it,  Dillmann  seeks  to  escape  the  same  diffi- 
culty by  an  elaborate  dissection  of  ch.  xlviii.,  in  order  to 
obtain  for  J  a  share  of  its  contents.  These  expedients 
for  relieving  a  difficulty  of  their  own  creation  simply 
show  that  these  chapters  cannot  be  separated.  The  sep- 
aration is  no  sooner  effected  than  they  must  be  brought 
together  again. 

The  necessity  of  finding  P,  J,  and  E  in  ch.  xlviii.  cre- 
ates a  fresh  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  disposal  of  vs.  1, 
2.  These  verses  are  essential  to  the  following  narrative ; 
hence  they  are  variously  assigned  by  different  critics,  with 
the  effect  of  leaving  the  account  in  some  of  the  docu- 
ments without  any  proper  introduction. 

Ys.  3-6  are  assigned  to  P  because  of  the  evident  allu- 
sion to  XXXV.  10-12,  and  are  regarded  as  his  account  of 
Jacob's  adoption  of  the  two  sons  of  Joseph.  But  the 
inverted  order,  "  Ephraim  and  Manasseh "  (ver.  5 ;  see 
xli.  50-52 ;  xlvi.  20)  requires  for  its  explanation  vs.  17- 
19,  showing  that  these  cannot  be  attributed  to  different 
documents.  Dillmann  has  no  resource  but  to  assume  that 
R  has  altered  the  text.  The  adoption  and  the  subse- 
quent blessing  are  consequently  successive  parts  of  the 
transaction,  and  cannot  be  set  over  against  each  other  as 
though  each  was  a  complete  and  variant  account  of  the 
whole  affair. 

Yer.  7  is  a  fresh  source  of  perplexity  to  the  critics. 
They  cannot  imagine  why  Jacob  should  have  spoken  just 
here  of  Eachel's  death  and  burial.  Some  consider  it  a 
later  gloss ;  but  it  is  more  unaccountable  as  an  interpola- 
tion than  as  an  original  constituent  of  the  text.     For 


ADOPTION  OF  Joseph's  sons  (xlvii.  28-xlviii.  22)   513 

what  conceivable  motive  could  any  one  have  for  inserting 
what  has  no  apparent  connection  with  the  subject  of  the 
chapter?  An  additional  perplexity  arises  from  the  fact 
that  "Paddan  "  (abridged  from  Paddan-aram)  is  a  P  word, 
while  the  body  of  the  verse  is  evidently  based  upon  xxxv. 
16,  19,  E.  This  might  be  avoided  by  referring  the  latter 
passage  to  P ;  but  then  the  opportunity  of  creating  an 
apparent  discrepancy  between  it  and  xxxv.  2'2b-26  P 
would  be  lost.  If  P  had  just  before  said  that  Benjamin 
was  born  at  Ephrath,  he  could  not  have  intended  to  in- 
clude him  in  the  general  statement  that  Jacob's  sons 
were  born  in  Paddan-aram.  In  spite,  however,  of  its 
manifest  dependence  upon  an  E  passage,  AVellhausen  and 
Dillmann  follow  Noldeke  in  ascribing  ver.  7  to  P,  as  well 
as  in  assuming  that  in  the  document  P  it  was  directlj- 
connected  with  xlix.  29  sqq.,  and  was  suggested  by  the 
thought  that  Eachel  alone  was  buried  elsewhere  than  in 
the  family  burying-ground  which  Abraham  had  pur- 
chased. E,  is  credited  with  having  transposed  vs.  3-7  to 
its  present  position,  and  thus  converted  what  was  said 
by  Jacob  in  the  presence  of  all  his  sous  into  an  address 
to  Joseph.  Kuenen,^  with  more  critical  consistenc}', 
alleges  that  the  acquaintance  with  both  P  and  E,  which 
is  presupposed  in  ver.  7,  makes  it  necessary  to  attribute 
it  to  R;  still,  as  he  confesses,  the  question  remains  "how 
R  could  have  inserted  it  in  so  inapposite  a  place."  From 
this  he  seeks  relief  in  the  attempted  solution  of  Budde, 
who  never  hesitates  at  any  extravagance  of  conjecture  to 
accomplish  his  purpose.  According  to  Budde,  in  P's  nar- 
rative, xlviii.  3-6  was  immediately  followed  by  xlix.  29- 
33,  and  the  last  clause  of  ver.  31  read,  "  and  there  I  bu- 
ried Leah  and  Rachel."  As  this  flatly  contradicted  xxxv. 
16  sqq.,  E  struck  out  the  words  "and  Rachel,"  inserting 
instead  the  statement  respecting  her  death  and  burial, 

'  Hexateuch,  p.  327. 
33 


614  THE   GENEKATIOI^S   OF   JACOB 

which  is  now  found  in  xlviii.  7,  and  placed  this  whole 
paragraph  thus  modified  directly  after  xlviii.  1,  2.  At  a 
later  time  another  redactor  rearranged  the  text  by  trans- 
ferring xlix.  29-32  from  the  lAiice  where  his  predecessor 
had  put  it  to  its  present  position  after  the  blessing  of 
Jacob  (xlix.  1-28)  ;  but  "xlviii.  7  was  left  where  it  was, 
and  thus  came  to  occupy  its  present  very  singular  posi- 
tion." All  this  wonderful  amount  of  conjectural  erasure, 
interpolation,  transposition,  and  rearrangement  ^  is  sum- 
moned to  remove  a  difficulty  which  is  no  difficulty  at 
all,  except  as  it  is  created  by  the  critical  partition.  What 
was  more  natural  than  that  Jacob,  in  speaking  to  the  son 
of  his  beloved  Rachel,  and  recalling  the  divine  manifes- 
tation granted  to  him  at  Luz  (xxxv,  9-15),  should  be  led 
to  speak  of  the  sorrow  that  befell  him  immediately  after 
in  the  death  of  Joseph's  mother  (vs.  16  sqq.)  ? 

By  giving  vs.  3-7  to  P,  on  account  of  El  Shaddai  and 
other  alleged  criteria,  the  critics  make  of  it  a  discon- 
nected fragment,  severed  from  its  appropriate  introduc- 
tion and  from  the  rest  of  the  scene  in  which  it  has  its 
proper  place.  After  this  has  been  separated  from  the 
remainder  of  the  chapter,  a  further  difficulty  arises  from 
the  intermingling  of  heterogeneous  criteria ;  Elohim,  a 
mark  Of  E,  runs  through  the  chapter  (vs.  9, 11, 15,  20,  21)  ; 
but  so  does  Israel,  a  mark  of  J  (vs.  2b,  8,  10,  11,  13,  14, 
(20),  21),  these  diverse  criteria  meeting  at  times  in  the 
same  sentence.  Wellhausen  makes  no  attempt  to  divide 
them,  but  gives  the  whole  to  E,  affirming  that  it  every- 
where shows  his  peculiarities,  and  that  henceforward  R 
no  longer  preserves  the  distinction  between  J  and  E  in 

'  Dillmann's  comment  upon  this  proposal  of  Budde  is,  "How  super- 
fluous, since  tlie  alleged  contradiction  was  already  removed  by  erasing 
'  and  Rachel ' !  and  what  an  injustice  to  P  to  introduce  into  it  by  an 
emendation  a  contradiction  to  universal  tradition,  in  order  then  to  let  it 
be  harmonized  by  R  !  Such  criticism  would  scarcely  be  admissible  even 
in  the  case  of  profane  writers." 


ADOPTION  OF  Joseph's  sons  (xlvii.  2S-xlviii.  23)   515 

their  respective  use  of  Israel  and  Jacob.  But  as  there  is 
uo  reason  why  he  should  discontinue  it  here,  if  he  had 
observed  it  at  all,  the  admission  that  it  is  inadmissible 
as  a  criterion  in  this  and  the  following  chapters,  dis- 
credits its  legitimacy  in  those  that  have  gone  before. 

Dillmann,  with  sturdy  consistency,  makes  a  bold  at- 
tempt to  j^reserve  both  these  criteria,  and  to  partition  the 
chapter  on  this  basis.  As  the  natural  result  J  and  E 
receive  separate  portions  of  the  narrative,  which  when 
sundered  can  be  made  to  appear  to  give  variant  rep- 
resentations of  the  affair.  Thus  in.  E  nothing  is  said  of 
Jacob's  blindness ;  he  embraces  and  kisses  Joseph's 
sons,  but  blesses  Joseph,  placing  Ephraim  before  Ma- 
nasseh,  and  giving  Shechem  to  Joseph.  In  J  the  prefer- 
ence of  Ephraim  is  the  central  point  of  the  representa- 
tion, and  the  blessing  is  bestowed  upon  Joseph's  sons. 
Jacob,  who  is  blind,  crosses  his  hands  in  order  to  place 
his  right  hand  on  the  head  of  Ephraim,  to  which  Joseph 
objects,  but  Jacob  insists. 

Notwithstanding  its  ingenuity,  however,  this  partition 
is  not  successful.  Dillmann  admits  that  in  vs.  8,  11,  21 
Israel  occurs  where  he  would  have  expected  Jacob.  In 
ver.  8  "Israel  beheld  Joseph's  sons,"  showing  that  the 
blindness  oi  ver.  10  J  was  not  total,  and  hence  not  incon- 
sistent with  ver.  11  E  ;  in  vs.  11,  21,  "Israel  said  unto 
Joseph  "  is  given  to  J,  but  as  Elohim  occurs  in  what  he 
says,  this  is  given  to  E.  Kautzsch  seeks  to  remedy  the 
matter  by  assuming  that  R  has  in  these  instances  sub- 
stituted "  Israel  "  for  "  Jacob  ;  "  but  why  he  should  do 
so  it  is  hard  to  see.  In  his  last  edition  Dillmann,  while 
retaining  his  partition,  admits  that  Israel  cannot  here  be 
made  a  criterion,  since  it  is  carried  through  the  en- 
tire narrative.  He  attempts  to  explain  it  by  saying 
that  in  this  instance  "  R  made  J  the  basis  and  only 
worked  in  E."     A  much  simpler  account  of  the  matter  is 


616  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

that  Jacob  is  used  (vs.  2a,  3)  as  the  personal  name  ;  but 
as  the  prominent  thought  throughout  the  chapter  is  the 
elevation  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  to  be  the  heads  of 
separate  tribes  in  the  national  organization,  the  name 
Israel  was  especially  appropriate. 

And  the  attempt  to  create  a  distinction  between  vs. 
15,  16,  20,  E,  and  ver.  19  J,  as  though  the  blessing  was 
given  to  Joseph  in  the  former,  but  to  his  sons  in  the  lat- 
ter, is  altogether  futile  ;  for  Joseph  is  blessed  by  invok- 
ing a  blessing  upon  "  the  lads  ;  "  and  the  allegation  that 
R  has  substituted  "  blessed  them  "  for  "  blessed  him  "  in 
ver.  20  is  at  variance  with  the  contents  of  the  verse.  In 
fact,  by  this  partition  the  whole  of  the  blessing  proper  is 
given  to  E,  and  only  the  preliminary  arrangements,  put- 
ting the  boys  in  position  and  placing  the  hands  on  their 
heads  with  Joseph's  disapproval  and  Jacob's  insistence, 
are  reserved  for  J  ;  but  these  manifestly  belong  together, 
and  cannot  form  two  separate  narratives  of  the  trans- 
action. 

A  duplicate  nari-ative  is  inferred  from  the  circumstance 
that  Joseph  is  twice  said  to  have  brought  his  sons  to  his 
father  (vs.  10b,  13b).  But  this  is  not  a  twofold  mention 
of  the  same  act.  They  were  first  led  to  Jacob,  who  affec- 
tionately embraced  them  ;  they  were  then  placed  in  the 
proper  position  before  him  to  receive  his  formal  bless- 

It  is  further  claimed  that  vs.  15,  16  interrupt  the  account 
of  Jacob's  crossing  his  hands,  and  that  vs.  17-19  interrupt 
the  continuity  of  the  blessing ;  hence  it  is  inferred  that 
something  has  in  each  case  been  intruded  from  another 
narrative.  This  simply  means  that  the  critic  differs  from 
the  writer  in  regard  to  the  proper  arrangement  of  the 
material  which  he  has  introduced  into  his  narrative. 
He  saw  fit  to  continue  Jacob's  action  as  far  as  vs.  15,  16 
before  proceeding  to  say  in  vs.  17-19  how  Joseph  inter- 


ADOPTION  OF  JOSEPH'S  SONS  (XLVII.  28-XLVIII.  22)     517 

ruptecl  it.  On  the  critics'  hypothesis  R  thought  this  to 
be  the  best  disposition  of  the  matter ;  why  may  not  the 
original  writer  have  been  of  this  opinion  ? 

There  is  no  implication  in  ver.  11  that  this  was  the 
first  time  that  Jacob  had  seen  Joseph's  sons,  any  more 
than  that  it  was  the  first  time  that  he  had  seen  Joseph 
himself  since  his  arrival  in  Egypt.  There  is  no  groimd, 
therefore,  for  assuming  a  discrepancy  with  xlvii,  28,  and 
hence  a  diversity  of  writers. 

Nor  does  ver.  22  conflict  with  statements  elsewhere. 
The  portion  or  ridge  (Heb.,  shechem),  which  Jacob  gives 
to  Joseph,  and  "  which,"  he  says,  "  I  took  out  of  the 
hand  of  the  Amorite  with  my  sword  and  with  my  bow," 
refers  to  the  capture  and  sack  of  Shechem  by  the  sons  of 
Jacob  (xxxiv.  27-29),  which  Jacob  deprecated  (ver.  30), 
and  strongly  condemned  (xlix.  5-7),  but  which,  neverthe- 
less, was  the  act  of  his  house,  or  of  the  clan  of  which  he 
was  the  responsible  head  ;  and  the  property  acquired  in 
a  manner  which  he  so  sharply  censures  he  bestows  not 
upon  those  who  participated  in  the  deed,  but  upon 
Joseph,  as  a  mark  of  special  favor,  and  an  earnest  of  his 
future  inheritance  in  the  land  of  promise.  Dillmann  ad- 
mits the  reference  to,  and  correspondence  with,  the  pas- 
sage named  above,  but  claims  that  a  diverse  representa- 
tion of  the  transaction  is  given  in  other  parts  of  ch. 
xxxiv.,  which  was  shown  to  be  unfounded  when  that 
chapter  was  under  discussion.  There  is  no  need,  there- 
fore, of  supposing  that  "  took  "  is  a  prophetic  preterite 
(Tuch),  or  that  Shechem  is  not  referred  to,  but  some 
other  district  whose  capture  is  not  recorded  (Kurtz),  or 
that  the  allusion  is  to  the  land  purchased  at  Shechem 
by  Jacob  (xxxiii.  19  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  32),  which  he  may  sub- 
sequently have  had  to  defend  by  force  of  arms,  or  of  al- 
tering the  text,  with  Kuenen,  into  "  not  with  my  sword  and 
with  my  bow,"  or  imagining  that  "  sword  "  and  "  bow  " 


518  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

are  figuratively  used  to  denote  purchase-money  as  the 
efficient  instrument  of  gaining  possession. 

The  following  divine  names  occur  in  this  section :  El 
Shaddai  (ver.  3),  with  allusion  to  xxxv.  11,  and  to  the 
almighty  power  which  pledged  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise;  Elohim  (vs.  9,  11,  20),  with  reference  to  gen- 
eral providential  blessings ;  ha-Elohim  (ver.  15),  "  the 
God  before  whom  my  fathers  Abraham  and  Isaac  did 
walk,  the  God,  who  fed  me  all  my  life  long,"  is  but  a 
paraphrase  of  Jehovah ;  Elohim  (ver.  21)  is  demanded 
by  the  contrast  of  the  human  with  the  divine ;  Jacob 
dies,  but  God  the  creator  and  governor  of  all  will  be 
with  his  descendants. 

MARKS   OF   P 

1.  Statement  of  age  (xlvii.  28).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks 
of  P,  No.  2,  ch.  xvi..  No.  1. 

2.  The  days  of  the  years  of  the  life  of  (ver  28).  See 
ch.  xxiii.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  5. 

3.  The  back  reference  to  xxxv.  6,  9,  11 ;  the  common 
authorship  of  these  passages  is  not  at  variance  with,  but 
involved  in,  the  unity  of  Genesis,  which  we  maintain. 

4.  I'^TC  b^5  God  Almighty  (xlviii.  3).  See  ch.  xxvi.  34- 
xxviii,  9,  Marks  of  P,  No.  5.-^ 

5.  Db^3?  nnm  everlasting  possession  (ver.  4).  See  ch. 
xvii.,  Marks  of  P,  No.  7  and  17. 

6-  ^"^"ins?  ^?'^t  thy  seed  after  thee  (ver.  4).  See  ch.  vi.- 
ix.,  Marks  of  P',  No,  17. 

7.  ^-^bin  beget  (ver.  6).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  20,  ch.  xvii.,  No.  10. 

8.  Paddan  (ver.  7).  See  ch.  xxv.  19-34,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  4. 

MARKS   OF  E 

1.  The  unusual  form  of  the  infinitive  nk"l  (xlviii.  11), 

as  itoy  (xxxi.  28),  TiW  (1.  20),  with  suf.  ^nte?  (Ex.  xviii. 


Jacob's  blessing  and  death  (ch.  xlix.)     519 

18)  E ;  there  are  but  two  examples  besides  in  the  Old 
Testament,  nip  (Prov.  xvi.  16),  and  intC  (Prov.  xxxi.  4). 

2.  tjsb^an  the  angel  (ver.  16).  See  ch.  xvi.,  Marks  of 
J,  No.  1.  '  ' 

3.  I'QTJ?  QPl  ^"^1??  •'"2/  name  shall  he  called  on  them  (ver. 
16) ;  this  is  compared  to  xxi.  12  E,  "  in  Isaac  shall  thy 
seed  be  called." 

4.  b^S  thought  (ver.  11) ;  nowhere  else  in  this  sense. 

5.  nji'n  groiv,  as  fishes  increase  (ver.  16),  occurs  no- 
where else. 

Such  rare  forms  and  expressions  are  no  indication  of  a 
writer's  habitual  style. 

makes  of  j 

1.  '^'^V1  ijomiger  (ver.  14).  See  xix.  29-38,  Marks  of  J, 
No.  2. 

2.  'jsi'a  refused  (ver.  19) ;  besides  in  J  (xxxvii.  35 ; 
xxxix.  8;  Ex.  iv.  23;  vii.  14;  x.  3 ;  xvi.  28);  in  E  (Ex. 
xxii.  16  (E.  v.,  ver.  17) ;  Num.  xx.  21 ;  xxii.  13, 14) ;  in  D 
(Deut.  XXV.  7). 

The  majority  of  critics  refer  the  verses  containing 
these  words  to  E. 

Jacob's  blessing  and  death  (ch.  xlix.) 

Dillmann  and  Schrader  follow  Knobel  in  assigning  to 
P  vs.  la,  28b-33.  But  that  Jacob's  address  to  his  sons 
(vs.  lb-28a)  cannot  belong  to  P,  notwithstanding  "  Shad- 
dai,"  Almighty  (ver.  25),  is  argued  from  Jehovah  (ver. 
18),  from  the  depreciation  of  Levi  (ver.  7),  from  the 
usage  of  this  document,  which  nowhere  else  contains  a 
poetical  passage,  and  from  the  lack  of  correspondence 
between  this  address  and  ver.  28b,  "  he  blessed  them, 
every  one  according  to  his  blessing  he  blessed  them ; " 


520  THE   GKNEKATIONS    OP'   JACOB 

this,  it  is  alleged,  is  quite  inapplicable  to  what  is  said  to 
Reuben,  Simeon,  and  Levi  (vs.  3-7),  which  is  the  reverse 
of  a  blessing.  Nor  can  it  belong  to  E,  since  vs.  5-7  are 
inconsistent  with  xlviii.  22,  and  ver.  4  with  the  prefer- 
ence shown  to  Reuben  in  xxxvii.  21,  22,  29,  30 ;  xlii.  22, 
37 ;  and  in  xlviii.  8  sqq.  Jacob  blesses  Joseph,  but  not 
his  other  sons.  It  is  accordingly  referred  to  J  not  as 
composed  by  him,  and  consequently  not  on  grounds  of 
diction  and  style,  but  as  a  pre-existing  ^viiting  incorpo- 
rated in  his  work,  w^hich  is  thought  to  be  corroborated  by 
previous  allusions  to  W'hat  is  here  said  of  Reuben  (ver.  -i, 
cf.  XXXV.  22),  and  of  Simeon  and  Levi  (vs.  5-7,  cf.  xxxiv. 
25,  26,  30),  as  well  as  by  the  prominence  given  to  Judah 
(vs.  8-12). 

Arguments  which  are  merely  inferences  from  the  un- 
proved partition  hypothesis  amount  to  nothing,  and 
may  be  dismissed  without  further  remark.  The  fact  is 
that  there  is  no  w^arrant  for  attaching  this  address  of  the 
dying  Jacob  to  any  one  of  the  so-called  documents  in 
distinction  from  the  others.  It  has  been  inserted  in  its 
place  by  the  author  of  Genesis  as  a  whole,  and  contains 
nothing  inconsistent  with  any  part  of  the  book.  That 
the  reproofs  administered  to  Reuben,  Simeon,  and  Levi 
are  intimately  related  to  the  passages  which  record  the 
facts  here  referred  to  is  obvious  and  is  freely  admitted ; 
and  there  is  not  a  single  passage  wdiich  they  antagonize. 
The  general  tenor  of  this  final  address  of  Jacob  to  his 
sons  is  that  of  blessing,  and  amply  justifies  the  language 
used  respecting  it  in  ver.  28b.  It  should  also  be  ob- 
served that  while  Reuben  is  degraded  from  the  dignity 
of  the  firstborn  in  consequence  of  his  shameful  conduct, 
and  Simeon  and  Levi  are  severely  censured  for  their 
deed  of  crvielty  and  violence,  and  a  penalty  affixed,  they 
are  not  utterly  disowned  or  prohibited  from  sharing  in 
the  blessings  and  2:)rivileges  of  the  covenant  people.     It 


Jacob's  blessing  and  death  (ch.  xlix.)    521 

has  before  been  shown  that  there  is  no  variance  between 
vs.  5-7  and  xlviii.  22  (see  p.  517) ;  and  that  the  passages 
in  which  Reuben  is  prominent  do  not  clash  with  those 
which  give  the  preference  to  Judah  (see  pp.  148,  475- 
477) ;  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  representations 
anywhere  made  respecting  them.  The  weakness  and 
inefficiency  of  Eeuben  appear  in  perpetual  contrast 
with  Judah's  manly  vigor  and  strength  of  character ; 
and  the  confidence  which  Jacob  reposes  in  the  latter, 
together  with  his  distrust  of  the  former,  corresponds 
with  his  attitude  toward  them  in  this  address. 

NO  vaticinium  post  eventum. 

The  critics  try  to  fix  the  age  of  this  blessing  of  Jacob 
on  the  assumption  that  it  is  a  vaticinium  post  eventum. 
Tuch  refers  it  to  the  time  of  Samuel  when  the  tribe  of 
Levi  was  m  ill-repute  from  the  gross  misconduct  of  the 
sons  of  Eli  and  the  capture  of  the  ark ;  Ewald  refers  it 
to  the  time  of  Samson,  the  famous  judge  from  the  tribe 
of  Dan ;  Knobel  to  the  reign  of  David ;  Eeuss  to  the  time 
of  David  and  Solomon ;  Wellhausen  to  the  period  of  the 
schism  and  the  rival  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Josej)h ; 
Stade  to  the  time  of  Ahab ;  Dillmann  seeks  to  make  it  all 
square  with  the  time  of  the  Judges.  But  the  fact  is  that 
it  is  impracticable  to  find  any  one  period  when  this 
blessing  could  have  been  composed  with  the  view  of 
setting  forth  the  existing  state  of  things.  The  sceptre  in 
Judah  foimd  no  adequate  frdfilmeut  until  the  reign  of 
David;  and  from  that  time  forth  the  consideration  en- 
joyed by  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  such  that  it  could  not 
possibly  have  been  spoken  of  in  the  terms  here  em- 
ployed. So  that  Kuenen,  in  despair  of  finding  any  one 
date  for  the  entire  blessing,  supposes  it  to  be  made  up  of 
brief  sayings  which  circulated  separately  in  the  tribes  to 


522  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

which  they  severally  related.  But  even  this  will  not  solve 
the  problem.  For  the  censures  passed  upon  the  first 
three  cannot  be  separated  from  the  blessing  of  Judah, 
for  which  they  evidently  prepare  the  way,  as  he  succeeds 
to  the  right  of  primogeniture  vacated  by  his  predecessors. 
The  prominence  given  to  Judah  and  Joseph  above  their 
brethren  is  clearly  intentional,  not  accidental ;  and  sev- 
eral of  the  blessings  would  be  insignificant  or  unmean- 
ing, if  taken  by  themselves  and  disconnected  from  the 
rest. 

The  structure  and  contents  of  this  blessing  make  it  im- 
possible to  explain  it  as  a  vaticinium  'post  eventum.  What 
is  said  respecting  Levi  compels  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
is  pre-Mosaic.  A  dispersion  resulting  from  their  priestly 
rank  could  not  after  the  time  of  Moses  be  spoken  of  as  a 
sentence  for  the  misdeed  of  their  ancestor.  The  sentence 
was  fulfilled  in  that  the  Levites  had  no  inheritance  in 
Canaan,  but  special  habitations  were  assigned  to  them  in 
the  territory  of  the  other  tribes,  not,  however,  as  a  degra- 
dation but  a  distinction.  They  were  the  ministers  of  the 
sanctuary,  and  the  Loed  was  their  inheritance.  The 
curse  was  turned  into  a  blessing.  The  language  in 
which  Moses  speaks  of  Levi  in  his  farewell  utterance 
(Deut.  xxxiir  8-11)  is  as  different  as  possible  from  that 
before  us.  The  whole  blessing  of  Jacob  is  only  compre- 
hensible as  utterances  of  the  dying  patriarch,  modified 
by  personal  reminiscences,  by  insight  into  the  characters 
of  his  sons,  and  by  their  very  names,  with  its  ejaculation 
of  pious  faith,  which  looked  forward  to  the  fulfilment  of 
the  promises  so  long  delayed  (ver.  18) ;  and  as  a  forecast- 
ing of  the  future  which  met  its  accomplishment  at  sepa- 
rate epochs  and  in  unexpected  ways,  and  which,  while 
clear  and  sharp  in  a  few  strongly  drawn  outlines,  is  vague 
in  others,  and  has  no  such  exactness  in  minute  details  as 
suggests  actual  historical  experience.    The  only  instance, 


JACOB'S    BLESSING    AND    DEATH    (CH.    XLIX.)       523 

in  which  the  specific  location  of  a  tribe  in  the  land  of 
promise  is  hinted  at,  is  in  apparent  disagreement  with 
the  subsequent  allotment  under  Joshua.  "  Zebulun  shall 
dwell  at  the  haven  of  the  sea  ;  and  he  shall  be  for  an 
haven  of  ships  ;  and  his  border  shall  be  unto  Zidon  " 
(ver.  13).  And  yet  Zebulun  was  separated  from  the  Sea 
of  Galilee  by  Naphtali,  and  Asher  lay  between  Zebulun 
and  the  Mediterranean.  Fortunately  the  critics  are  here 
precluded  by  their  own  hypothesis  from  discrediting  the 
truth  of  the  prophecy.  Dillmann  explains  that  "  the 
boundary  between  Asher  and  Zebulun  is  not  strictly  de- 
fined (Josh.  xix.  14,  15),  and  therefore  the  possibility  that 
Zebulun  bordered  on  the  Mediterranean  with  a  strip  of 
land  is  not  excluded  ;  "  and  he  appeals  in  confirmation  to 
Josephus  ("Antiquities,"  5,  8,  22,  "Jewish  "Wars,"  3,  3,  1). 
It  is  observable,  however,  that  the  Song  of  Deborah  (Judg. 
V.  17),  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  in  adopting  expres- 
sions from  the  verse  which  we  are  considering,  applies 
them  to  other  tribes,  whose  territory  lay  more  entirely 
upon  the  coast  and  thus  speaks  of  Dan  as  abiding  in 
ships  and  Asher  as  continuing  on  the  seashore.  This 
suggests  what  might  have  been  expected  in  Gen.  xlix., 
if  it  had  been  composed  after  Israel's  occupation  of 
Canaan. 

The  same  thing  appears  from  the  language  of  ver.  1, 
which  announces  as  the  theme  of  the  prophecy  what 
shall  take  place  "  in  the  last  days."  As  this  expression 
is  found  repeatedly  in  the  prophets,  it  has  been  urged  as 
an  indication  that  this  blessing  was  composed  or  ver.  1 
prefixed  to  it  in  the  prophetic  period.  But  "the  last 
days  "  always  denotes  the  ultimate  future.  Jacob  could 
look  forward  to  the  time  when  the  promises  made  to 
himself  and  his  fathers  would  be  fulfilled  as  the  ultimate 
bound  of  his  hopes  and  expectations.  But  no  one  living 
at  any  time  that  the  critics  may  fix  upon  as  the  date  of 


524  THE   GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

this  chapter  coiikl  have  imagined  that  the  ultimate  future 
was  already  reached,  or  could  describe  the  state  of  things 
then  existing  as  what  was  to  befall  Israel  in  "  the  last 
days." 

All  this  points  to  the  genuineness  of  this  blessing  as 
really  the  utterance  of  Jacob,  which  it  claims  to  be  and 
is  declared  to  be.  Its  antiquity  is  further  evidenced,  as 
is  remarked  by  Dillmann,  by  the  peculiar  figures  em- 
ployed in  vs.  4,  8,  10,  11,  12,  14,  17,  19,  21-26,  and  its 
many  rare  expressions  that  were  disused  in  later  times, 
THS  bubbling  over,  linin  excel  (ver.  4),  fTlD'Q  sivord  (ver  5), 
pl^n^  ruler's  staff  (ver.  10),  niD  clothes  (ver.  11),  "^bibDn 
red  (ver.  12),  D^'nstp'a  slieepfolds  (ver.  14),  "jisiS'iJ  adder 
(ver.  17j,  n^bi^  slender  (ver.  21),  and  much  besides  in  vs. 
22-26.  To  Avhich  add  the  citations  from  it  or  allusions 
to  it  in  the  Mosaic  period ;  comp.  ver.  9  and  Num.  xxiv. 
9,  xxiii.  24 ;  vs.  13,  14,  Zebulun  before  Issachar  and  sub- 
sisting by  the  sea,  cf.  Deut.  xxxiii.  18,  19  ;  vs.  25,  26,  cf. 
Deut.  xxxiii.  13-16. 

The  words,  "  And  Jacob  called  unto  his  sons  "  (ver.  la), 
are  sundered  from  their  connection,  and  linked  with  vs. 
28b-33  P,  because  the  name  "  Jacob  "  is  regarded  as  a 
mark  of  P.  But  as  this  deprives  the  blessing  of  its  in- 
troduction, which  is  here  indispensable,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  assume  that  it  was  originally  prefaced  by  a  like 
statement  from  the  pen  of  J  ;  though  no  reason  can  be 
given  why  R  should  have  removed  it  in  order  to  substi- 
tute words  identical  in  signification,  but  belonging  to  a 
different  place.  Wellhausen  avoids  this  senseless  trans- 
position by  disregarding  here,  as  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter, the  alleged  criterion  from  the  name  of  the  patri- 
arch. 

Jacob's  charge  to  his  sons  to  bury  him  with  his  fathers 
in  the  cave  of  Machpelah  (vs.  29,  sqq.),  is  held  to  be  a 
variant  account  by  P  of  the  transaction  recorded  by  J  in 


Jacob's  blessing  and  death  (ch.  xlix.)     525 

xlvii.  29-31,  P  representing  tliat  to  be  enjoined  upon  all 
his  sons,  which  according  to  J  was  addressed  to  Joseph 
alone.  Identifying  distinct  events,  as  we  have  seen  from 
the  beginning  of  Genesis  to  the  end,  is  a  favorite  artifice 
of  the  critics,  of  which  they  make  abundant  use  in  ef- 
fecting the  partition  of  the  text.  It  was  natural  and  ap- 
propriate that  Jacob  should  in  the  first  instance  make 
his  appeal  in  this  matter  to  Joseph,  who  was  invested 
with  supreme  authority,  and  without  whose  permission 
it  could  not  be  done  ;  and  when  his  concurrence  had 
been  secured,  that  he  should  further  make  his  wish 
known  to  all  his  sons,  by  whom  it  was  to  be  carried  into 
effect.  The  emphatic  iteration  in  vs.  29-32,  as  in  the 
original  account  of  the  transaction  referred  to  (ch.  xxiii.), 
and  the  repetition  of  the  identical  terms  of  the  original 
purchase,  shows  the  stress  laid  by  the  writer  on  this  initial 
acquisition  of  a  permanent  possession  in  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan. 

The  middle  clause  of  ver.  33,  "  he  gathered  up  his  feet 
into  his  bed,"  contains  a  plain  allusion  to  the  previous 
mention  of  his  bed  in  xlvii.  31  ;  xlviii.  2.  In  conse- 
quence, Dillmann  is  constrained  to  cut  out  this  clause 
and  assign  it  to  J,  though  there  is  nothing  in  J  with 
which  to  connect  it.  Budde  proposes  to  find  a  connec- 
tion for  it  by  attributing  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  hke- 
wise  to  J ;  but  in  doing  so  it  is  necessary  for  him  to 
change  "commanding"  into  "blessing,"  so  as  to  link  it 
with  vs.  1-27,  instead  of  the  immediately  preceding 
verses.  All  this  only  shows  the  embarrassment  which 
the  critics  create  for  themselves  by  partitioning  among 
different  documents  what  is  one  indivisible  narrative. 

The  divine  names,  El,  God,  and  Shaddai,  Almighty,  both 
suggestive  of  omnipotence,  occur  in  ver.  25,  and  Jeho- 
vah in  ver.  18,  where  Jacob  gives  expression  to  his  own 
pious  trust. 


526  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

MAEKS   OF   P   (TS.  29-33) 

1.  The  back  reference  to  cli.  xxiii.  This  is  readily  ad- 
mitted, but  uo  arcrumeut  can  be  derived  from  it  iu  favor 

O 

of  critical  partition. 

2.  yia  expired  (ver.  33).  See  ch.  vi.-ix.,  Marks  of  P, 
No.  187 

3.  ninx  possession  (ver.  30).  See  ch.  xAii.,  Marks  of 
P,  No.'7.'^ 

4.  1''72y"bs{;  rjwS;?  n-as  gafhtred  unto  his  people  (ver.  33). 
See  ch.  xxv.  1-11,  Marks  of  P,  No.  5. 

5-  l??r  V"^'^  ^""^  ^/  Caiman  (ver.  30).  See  ch.  xii.  5, 
Marks'of  v[  No.  4. 

6.  The  connection  with  1.  12,  13.  The  connection  is 
obvious,  but  yields  uo  proof  of  critical  pai'tition. 

THE   BURIAL   OF   JACOB   AND    DEATH   OF   JOSEPH    (CH.  L.) 

The  critics  are  imauimous  in  referring  vs.  12,  13  to  P; 
Kayser  antl  Schrader  agree  with  Knobel  in  assigning  the 
remainder  of  the  chapter  to  J  on  the  basis  of  an  earlier 
source ;  Wellhausen,  followed  by  Dillmann,  attributes 
vg-.  4-11,  14  to  J  ;  vs.  15-26  to  E ;  Wellhausen  does  not 
veutui'e  to  determine  the  source  of  vs.  1-3,  together  with 
the  first  words  of  ver.  4 ;  Dillmann  thinks  that  they  are 
probably  to  be  attributed  to  J,  who  may  have  written  on 
the  basis  of  a  previoiis  accoimt  by  E.  The  reason  of  the 
hesitation  about  these  opening  verses  is  that  the  refer- 
ence to  embalming  is  indicative  of  the  same  author  as 
in  ver.  26  E,  while  "Israel"  (ver.  2)  and  "fell  upon  his 
father's  face  "  are  esteemed  raai'ks  of  J.  Moreover,  J 
here  describes  the  preparations  for  the  burial  of  Jacob 
without  ha^•ing  mentioned  the  fact  of  his  death  ;  this  is 
foimd  only  in  P  (xlix.  33). 

We  are  told  that  there  are  two  distinct  and  varying 
accounts  of  Jacob's  interment.     That,  in  vs.  4-11,  14,  is 


THE   BUKIAL   OF   JACOB   (CII.   L.)  527 

assigned  to  J,  because  of  the  explicit  reference  in  ver.  5 
to  Joseph's  solemn  promise  to  bury  his  father  in  Ca- 
naan (xlvii.  29-31) ;  accordingly  in  this  account  Joseph 
conducts  the  funeral  with  great  pomp  and  an  immense 
retinue.  The  other  accoimt  by  P  (vs.  12,  13)  is  con- 
formed to  the  charge  given  by  Jacob  to  all  his  sons 
l^xlix.  29-32)  ;  in  it  no  prominence  is  given  to  Joseph, 
who  is  not  even  separately  mentioned ;  Jacob  is  carried 
to  Canaan  by  his  sons,  and  there  buried  in  the  spot 
which  he  had  indicated  to  them.  But  it  has  already 
been  shown  that  the  dii-ection  respecting  his  burial  given 
by  Jacob  to  Joseph,  and  that  to  all  his  sons,  are  not  va- 
riant reports  of  the  same  transaction  in  diHereut  docu- 
ments. Hence  the  reference  to  them  both  in  this  chap- 
ter affords  no  argimient  for  a  diversity  of  soiu'ces  here. 
And  besides,  the  proposed  partition  is  impracticable  ;  it 
simply  creates  two  fragments,  neither  of  which  is  com- 
plete without  the  other.  In  J  Joseph  goes  with  a  great 
compimy  to  bmy-  his  father  ;  he  comes  back  after  buiy- 
ing  his  father ;  but  of  the  actual  burial  nothing  is  said. 
The  only  accoimt  of  that  is  in  the  verses  which  are  cut 
out  and  assigned  to  P.  Again,  in  P  the  sons  of  Jacob 
carry  him  to  Canaan  and  bury  him,  but  nothing  is  said 
of  then-  return  to  Egypt ;  that  is  only  to  be  foimd  in 
ver.  IJ:,  which  is  given  to  J. 

It  is  claimed,  however,  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  as 
to  the  place  of  interment  ;  but  the  critics  are  not  agreed 
as  to  what  or  where  this  discrepancy  is.  Kayser,  to 
whom  WeUhausen  gives  his  adherence,  finds  it  in  ver.  5, 
which  he  translates,  "in  my  grave  which  I  have  bought 
for  me  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  there  shalt  thou  bury  me." 
From  this  he  infers  that  the  place  intended  can  be  no 
other  than  the  piece  of  ground  at  Shechem  purchased 
from  the  sons  of  Ham  or,  as  related  by  J  i^xxxiii.  18-20 », 
(other  critics  refer  these  verses  to  E).     And  he  goes  on 


528  THE    GENERATIONS    OF   JACOB 

to  say  that  this  half -concealed  contradiction  in  respect  to 
the  grave  of  Jacob  at  Shechem,  or  at  Hebron,  is  the 
token  of  a  profound  difference  between  J  and  P.  J,  a 
native  of  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel,^  is  interested 
for  Shechem  in  Ephraim ;  P,  who  belonged  to  the 
southern  kingdom,  is  strongly  attached  to  Hebron  in 
Judah.  As  this  interpretation  of  Kayser  is  inconsistent 
with  xlvii.  29,  30,  to  which  ver.  5  expressly  refers,  he 
is  obliged  to  assume  that  these  verses  have  been  altered 
by  El  into  conformity  with  xlix.  29,  30  ;  though  why  he 
should  have  altered  them  and  allowed  ver.  5  to  remain 
without  change  does  not  appear.  Noldeke  and  others 
find  the  discrepancy  in  ver.  10;  the  burial,  he  says, 
must  have  taken  place  where  the  lamentation  was  made. 
Kautzsch  finds  a  doublet  in  ver.  10b,  and  insists  that 
three  distinct  places  of  interment  are  spoken  of,  repre- 
senting as  many  variant  narratives,  the  threshing-floor 
of  Atad,  Abel-mizraim,  and  the  cave  of  Machpelah.  But 
the  difficulty  with  these  attempts  to  discover  a  discrep- 
ancy is  that  the  cave  of  Machpelah  is  the  only  place 
at  which  the  burial  is  said  to  have  been ;  and  with  this 
xlvii.  30  agrees. 

A  difficulty  has  been  found  in  the  words  "  beyond 
Jordan  "  (ver.  11),  as  though  they  implied  a  very  circui- 
tous route  for  the  funeral  procession,  and  were  contra- 
dicted by  "  Canaanites "  in  the  same  verse,  who  dwelt 
west  of  the  Jordan.  Jerome,  however,  identifies  Abel- 
mizraim  with  Beth-hoglah,  in  the  border  of  Judah,  and 
Benjamin  (Josh.,  xv.  6;  xviii.  19).  May  not  "beyond 
Jordan"  mean  beyond  Jordan,  w-estward,  as  in  Dent.  xi.  30, 
and  be  an  incidental  confirmation  of  Mosaic  authorship  ? 

Verses  15-26  are  assigned  to  E  on  account  of  the  re- 
peated occurrence  of  Elohim,  notwithstanding  the  two- 
fold statement  of  age  (vs.  22,  26),  such  as  is  regularly  else- 

'  Other  critics  make  liim  a  citizen  of  Judah. 


THE    BUKIAL    OF   JACOB    (CH.    L.)  529 

where  given  to  P,^  and  two  phrases  which  are  regarded 
as  characteristic  of  J,  "  spake  to  their  heart "  (ver.  21  as 
xxxiv.  3),  and  "the  land  which  he  sware  to  Abraham,  to 
Isaac,  and  to  Jacob  "  (ver.  24) ;  in  the  passages  assigned 
to  E  no  promise  is  given  of  the  laud  of  Canaan  to  any 
one  of  the  patriarchs.  The  proof  of  unity  arising  from 
these  frequent  cross-references  from  one  document  to 
the  other  can  only  be  evaded  by  using  the  critical  knife 
and  invoking  the  agency  of  E. 

P  records  the  death  and  the  interment ;  J  the  embalm- 
ing, the  funeral  procession,  and  the  return  from  the  grave  ; 
E  the  subsequent  apprehensions  of  Joseph's  brothers 
and  his  generous  treatment  of  them.  And  yet  these  ex- 
tracts from  separate  works,  as  they  are  said  to  be,  match 
as  perfectly  as  though  they  had  come  from  the  same  pen, 
and  the  continuity  of  the  narrative  is  as  accurately  pre- 
served. 

Dillmann  imagines  that  ver.  21  implies  the  coiitinuance 
of  the  famine,  and  hence  infers  a  discrepancy  between 
E  and  P  (xlvii.  28)  with  respect  to  the  time  of  Jacob's 
death.  This  is  built  on  the  groundless  assumption  that 
Joseph  could  not  continue  to  support  his  brethren  after 
the  years  of  dearth  were  ended. 

The  divine  names  are  "  the  God  of  thy  father  "  (ver. 
17),  which  is  a  paraphrase  of  Jehovah,  and  Elohim  (vs. 
19,  20,  24,  25),  which  is  appropriate  where  the  divine  is 
contrasted  with  the  human. 

MAKES  OF  J 

1.  DD'^r^a  "jn  ^nxStt  S3  DS  if  now  I  have  found  favor 
in  ijour  eyes  (ver.  4).  See  ch,  xii.  10-20,  Marks  of  J,  Ko. 
3;  ch.  vi.  1-8,  No.  10;  ch.  xviii.,  xix..  No.  28. 

2.  '^wTS^a  "ia'1  speak  in  the  ears  of  (ver.  4) ;  besides  in  J, 
xliv.  18  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  44 ;  in  J  or  E,  Num.  xiv.  28 ;  in  E, 

'  Kayser  aud  Schrader  cut  out  ver   23  and  give  it  to  P. 
34 


530  THE   GENERATIONS   OF   JACOB 

Gen.  XX.  8  ;  Ex.  xi.  2 ;  in  P,  Gen.  xxiii.  13, 16 ;  in  D,  Dent. 
V.  1 ;  Josh.  XX.  4  ;  in  Rd,  Dent.  xxxi.  28,  30. 

3.  pn  only  (ver.  8).    See  ch.  vi.  1-8,  Marks  of  J,  No.  7. 

4.  ^Di  chariots,  C^iEns  horsemen  (ver.  9).  See  ch.  xlvii. 
12-27,  Marks  of  J,  N0V4. 

5.  ins  great,  grievous  (vs.  9-11).  See  ch.  xlii.-xliv. 
Marks  of  J,  No.  14. 

6.  ijnp  ]3"by  therefore  luas  called  (ver.  11)  ;  besides  in 
J,  xi.  9;  xvi.  14;  xix.  22;  xxv.  30;  xxix.  34;  xxxi.  48 
(doublet  in  E  connection) ;  xxxiii.  17  ;  Josh.  vii.  26  (JE) ; 
but  also  in  E,  Gen.  xxi.  31 ;  Ex.  xv.  23.  This  phrase  is 
contrasted  with  and  he  called  the  name.  Gen.  xxxii.  3,  31 
(E.  v.,  vs.  2,  30),  as  though  the  latter  was  indicative  of  a 
different  document ;  yet  it  occurs  repeatedly  in  J,  e.g.. 
Gen.  iii.  20 ;  iv.  17,  26 ;  xix.  37,  38 ;  xxvi.  20,  21,  22,  33 ; 
xxxviii.  3,  29,  30,  Num.  xi,  3. 

MAEKS  OF  E 

1.  The  connection  of  vs.  24-26  with  Ex.  xiii.  19  ;  Josh, 
xxiv.  32,  which  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  unity  of 
the  Pentateuch. 

2.  bsbs  nourish  (ver.  21) ;  only  twice  besides  in  the 
Pentateuch  (xlv.  11 ;  xlvii.  12  E).  It  occurs  exclusively 
with  reference  to  Joseph's  promise  to  nourish  his  father 
and  brethren  in  Egypt.  Ch.  xlvii.  12  is  in  a  context 
which  is  assigned  to  other  documents  ;  but  this  solitary 
verse  is  cut  out  of  its  connection  and  given  to  E  because 
of  this  Avord  and  its  manifest  relation  to  xlv,  11.  See 
ch.  xlvii.  12-27,  Marks  of  E,  No.  2. 

3.  niUS'  unusual  form  of  the  constract  infinitive.  See 
ch.  xlvii,  28-xlviii.  22,  Marks  of  E,  No.  1. 

4.  i:j5  DTi'bi^  innnn  am  I  in  the  place  of  God  (ver,  19)  ; 
but  once  besides  in  the  Pentateuch  (xxx.  2  E). 

5.  "isia-by  upon  the  knees  of  (ver.  23) ;  besides  in  the 
Pentateuch  only  (xxx.  3  E). 


CONCLUSION 

We  have  now  completed  the  critical  study  of  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  and  it  only  remains  to  sum  up  the 
result  of  our  investigations.  The  question  before  us 
is  whether  Genesis  is,  as  tradition  unanimously  affirms, 
a  continuous  production  by  a  single  writer,  or,  as  the 
divisive  critics  declare,  a  compilation  from  different  doc- 
uments by  different  authors  and  belonging  to  different 
ages. 

It  is  to  be  noted  at  the  outset  that  there  is  no  proof 
whatever,  outside  of  the  book  itself,  that  such  documents 
ever  existed.  And  there  is  no  suggestion  anywhere  thnt 
the  existence  of  such  documents  was  ever  suspected  un- 
til recent  times.  The  whole  case,  then,  lies  before  us. 
Genesis  is  its  own  witness.  What  testimony  does  it 
give? 

GROUNDS   OF  PARTITION 

Kittel  presents  the  argument  for  partition  in  the  fol- 
lowing brief  but  comprehensive  manner  :  ^  "  The  entire 
Hexateuchal  narrative  falls  apart  in  a  series  of  strata, 
whose  individual  constituents  are  closely  connected  in 
language,  stjde,  and  characteristic  forms  of  speech,  while 
they  stand  in  the  most  decided  contrast  with  other  nar- 
ratives, which  are  possibly  homogeneous  with  them  or 
related  to  them  in  their  contents. 

'  Geschichte  der  Hebraer,  pp.  30,  31.  This  passage  is  abridged  by 
the  omission  of  illustrative  examples,  since  a  much  more  exhaustive 
statement  of  them  will  be  given  from  another  source. 


532  CONCLUSION 

"  In  connection  with  this  phenomenon  the  further  fact 
appears  that  many  diversities  and  contradictions  are  like- 
wise observable  in  the  narrative  material.  Of  a  great 
number  of  the  Hexateuchal  narratives  we  have  two  or 
more  accounts.  Some  of  these  repetitions,  the  number 
of  which  could  easily  be  swelled  ad  injinitum,  might  pos- 
sibly be  explained  as  intentional  on  the  part  of  the 
Avriter.  At  least  such  an  explanation  might  answer,  did 
not  the  above-mentioned  diversity  of  language  almost 
always  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  repetition  of  the  matter. 
It  is  thus  already  made  quite  improbable  that  the  repe- 
tition is  an  addition  by  the  writer  himself,  or  is  a 
resumption  of  the  thread  of  the  narrative  previously 
dropped  by  him.  But  it  becomes  positively  impossible 
by  perceiving,  what  is  almost  always  connected  with  it, 
that  the  two  or  more  accounts  of  the  same  thing  also 
diverge  in  their  substantive  matter  in  a  number  of  feat- 
ures that  are  sometimes  quite  important,  sometimes 
rather  subordinate." 

REPETITIONS   AND  DISCREPANCIES 

Numberless  repetitions  with  more  or  less  serious  dis- 
crepancies and  a  varied  diction  would  seem  indeed  to  be 
inconsistent  with  unity  of  authorship.  And  when  these 
alleged  repetitions  and  discrepancies  are  massed  together 
iu  a  formidable  list,  as  they  are  by  Dillmann,'  it  natu- 
rally makes  the  impression  that  such  an  accumulation  of 
arguments  must  be  strong  indeed ;  and  however  weak 
and  inconclusive  particular  examples  may  be  when  viewed 
singly,  the  combined  force  of  the  whole  must  be  irresisti- 
ble. But  arguments  must  be  weighed  and  not  merely 
counted.  It  only  requires  a  patient  examination  of  these 
cases  in  detail  to  show  how  illusive  they  are.     The  entire 

'  Die  Genesis,  Vorbemerkuiigen,  pp.  ix.,  x. 


REPETITIONS   AND   DISCREPANCIES  533 

vast  array  melts  into  nothingness  as  soon  as  their  reality 
is  tested. 

In  Dillmann's  classification  he  adduces  what  he  calls 

1.  "Idle  repetitions."  These  are  either  not  repeti- 
tions at  all,  as  Gen.  xxi.  la  and  lb,  where  the  first  clause 
states  the  fact  and  the  second  the,  purpose  of  Jehovah's 
visit  to  Sarah  ;  xlvii.  29  sqq.  and  xlix.  29  sqq. ,  first  Ja- 
cob's request  of  Joseph  that  he  might  be  buried  in  Ca- 
naan, then  his  charge  to  all  his  sons  to  bury  him  there ; 
or  the  repetition  is  for  a  sufficient  reason  (iv.  25,  26,  and 
V.  1-6),  where  the  birth  of  Seth  and  Enosh  are  included 
in  the  genealogy  from  Adam  to  Noah,  and  are  likewise 
mentioned  separately  in  order  to  introduce  some  facts 
concerning  them  which  could  not  be  inserted  in  the 
genealogy  without  marring  its  symmetry  and  the  regu- 
larity of  its  structure. 

2.  "  Two  or  more  accounts  of  the  same  thing,  which 
might  possibly  be  explained  by  the  writer's  assuming 
that  they  were  different  events  or  wishing  to  note  the 
variation  in  the  traditions."  These  are  in  every  instance 
distinct  events,  which  critics  assume  without  reason  to 
be  identical,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  are  recorded  as 
distinct,  and  are  further  shown  to  be  distinct  by  differ- 
ences of  time,  place,  and  circumstances,  which  critics 
arbitrarily  convert  into  the  discrepancies  of  variant  tra- 
ditions. It  is  not  different  versions  of  the  same  story 
when  a  like  peril  befalls  Sarah  in  Egypt  (xii.  10  sqq.), 
and  in  Gerar  (xx.  1  sqq.),  and  at  a  still  later  time  Kebekah 
(xxvi.  7  sqq.) ;  or  when  Hagar  flees  from  her  mistress 
before  the  birth  of  Ishmael  (xvi.  6  sqq.),  and  she  is  sub- 
sequently sent  away  with  Ishmael  (xxi.  12  sqq.) ;  or  when 
God  ratifies  his  covenant  with  Abraham  by  a  visible 
symbol  (ch.  xv.),  and  it  is  afterward  ratified  by  Abraham 
by  the  seal  of  circumcision  (ch,  xvii.) ;  or  when  the  promise 
of  a  son  by  Sarah  is  first  made  to  Abraham  (xvii.  15-17), 


534  CONCLUSION 

and  then  in  the  hearing  of  Sarah  (sviii.  9-12) ;  or  when 
Jacob  obtains  the  blessing  which  his  father  intended  for 
Esau  (ch.  xxvii.),  and  again  receives  a  parting  blessing 
from  his  father  as  he  was  leaving  home  for  Paddan-aram 
(xxviii.  1-5). 

3.  "  Variant  explanations  of  the  same  name."  These 
are  simply  allusive  references  to  the  signification  of  the 
name  made  on  different  occasions,  which  of  course  in- 
volve no  discrepancy ;  or  in  some  cases  they  are  differ- 
ent suggestions  awakened  by  the  sound  of  the  name, 
where  there  is  no  pretence  of  giving  its  actual  derivation, 
and,  of  course,  no  ground  for  the  charge  that  different 
conceptions  of  its  etymology  are  involved.  Thus,  with 
allusion  to  the  name  Isaac,  which  means  laughter,  it  is 
related  that  when  his  birth  was  predicted  Abraham  (xvii. 
17)  and  Sarah  also  laughed  incredulously  (xviii.  12),  and 
when  he  was  born  Sarah  said  that  God  had  made  her  to 
laugh  for  joy,  and  all  that  hear  would  laugh  with  her 
(xxi.  6).  So  Edom,  red,  is  associated  with  the  red  color 
of  Esau  at  his  birth  (xxv,  25),  and  the  red  pottage  for 
which  he  sold  his  birthright  (ver.  30).  So  the  twofold 
hire  linked  with  the  name  Issachar  (xxx.  16,  18),  and  the 
double  suggestion  of  Zebulun  (ver.  20)  and  of  Joseph  (vs. 
23,  24) ;  Mahanaim  connected  with  the  host  of  angels 
xxxii.  3  (E.  v.,  ver.  2),  and  with  Jacob's  two  bauds,  ver. 
8  (E.  v.,  7) ;  Ishmael  with  God's  hearing  Hagar  in  her 
affliction  (xvi.  11),  and  hearing  the  voice  of  the  lad  in  his 
distress  (xxi.  17) ;  and  Peniel,  where  Jacob  saw  the  face 
of  God  (xxxii.  31  (E.  V.,  ver.  30))  and  the  face  of  Esau 
(xxxiii.  10)  as  one  seeth  the  face  of  God. 

4.  "Repetitions  which  are  mutually  exclusive,  since 
the  thing  can  only  have  happened  once  or  in  one  way." 
Thus  the  creation  (ch.  i.  and  ii.) ;  but,  as  has  been  abun- 
dantly shown  (pp.  9  sqq.,  20  sqq.),  there  is  here  no  dupli- 
cate account  and  no  discrepancy.    The  number  of  the 


REPETITIONS   AND   DISCREPANCIES  535 

animals  in  the  ark  and  the  duration  of  the  flood  (ch.  vi., 
vii.)  ;  but  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the  general 
statement  that  two  of  every  species  should  be  taken  and 
the  more  particular  direction  to  take  seven  of  the  clean 
animals  ;  and  the  alleged  diversity  in  reckoning  the  dura- 
tion of  the  flood  is  a  pure  figment  of  the  critics  with  no 
foundation  in  the  narrative  itself.  See  p.  92.  The  disper- 
sion of  the  nations  is  not  difi'erently  explained,  as  though 
that  was  traced  in  ch.  x.  to  the  multiplication  of  Noah's 
descendants,  which  in  xi.  1-9  (to  which  x.  25  alludes)  is 
ascribed  to  immediate  divine  intervention,  since  neither 
of  these  excludes  the  other.  There  is  no  discrepancy  in 
regard  to  the  origin  of  the  name  Beersheba,  which  was 
first  given  by  Abraham  (xxi.  31),  and  afterward  renewed 
by  Isaac  (xxvi.  33),  who  is  expressly  said  to  have  digged 
again  the  wells  of  his  father,  and  called  them  by  the 
names  which  his  father  had  called  them  (ver.  18).  There 
was  a  like  renewal  of  the  name  Israel  divinely  given  to 
Jacob  (xxxii.  29  E.  V.,  ver.  28  and  xxxv.  10),  and  of 
Bethel  (xxviii.  19 ;  xxxv.  15),  which  Jacob  reconsecrated 
by  a  solemn  rite  upon  his  second  visit  (xxxv.  1,  14),  as  he 
had  engaged  to  do  in  memory  of  God's  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  there  graciously  made  (xxviii.  18-22).  The  ref- 
erence to  the  conflict  with  the  Shechemites  (xlviii.  22) 
differs  from  the  account  in  ch.  xxxiv.  simply  in  this,  that 
Jacob  as  the  head  of  the  clan  assumes  the  responsibility 
of  the  deed  of  his  sons.  The  alleged  discrepancy  in  re- 
gard to  the  treatment  of  Joseph  by  his  brothers  and  the 
traders  who  brought  him  to  Egypt  (xxxvii.  19-36)  is  a 
sheer  invention  of  the  critics,  who  have  themselves  created 
it  by  an  unwarranted  partition  of  the  passage. 

5.  "  Other  incompatible  statements."  The  allegation 
that  the  reduction  of  human  life  to  one  hundred  and 
twenty  years  (vi.  3)  is  inconsistent  wdth  chs.  v.,^  xi.,  etc., 

1  The  reference  to  ch.  v.  is  a  slip  on  the  part  of  Dillmann,  as  the  lives 


536  CONCLUSION 

rests  ujoou  a  misinterpretation  of  the  former  passage, 
which  states  the  limit  allowed  to  the  existing  generation 
before  it  shonld  be  swept  away  by  the  flood,  not  that  of 
human  life  in  general.  See  pp.  59,  60.  Abraham's  many 
sous  after  Sarah's  death  (xxv.  1,  2)  are  said  to  be  in  con- 
flict with  xviii.  11,  12 ;  xvii.  17,  but  his  previous  child- 
lessness is  uniformly  attributed  to  the  barrenness  of 
Sarah  (xi.  30  ;  xvi.  1,  2)  ;  and  Dillmann  himself  admits 
("  Genesis,"  p.  303)  that  if  Abraham  lived  to  be  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five  years  old  (xxv.  7),  it  would  not  be 
surprising  if  he  had  children  after  he  was  one  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  (xxiii.  1 ;  cf.  xvii.  17).  Esau  settled  in  Seir 
when  Jacob  returned  from  Paddan-aram  (xxxii.  4  sqq., 
E.  v.,  vs.  3  sqq.)  is  represented  to  be  at  variance  with 
xxxvi.  6.  But  Esau's  presence  in  Seir  at  that  time  does 
not  imply  that  he  had  already  removed  his  family  and 
his  possessions  from  Canaan,  and  had  abandoned  his 
claim  upon  it  in  favor  of  Jacob.  That  he  had  no  such 
intention  then  is  plain  from  the  manner  in  which  he 
came  to  meet  Jacob  (xxxiii.  1),  implying  a  hostile  pur- 
pose, and  at  the  very  least  a  determination  to  prevent, 
or  forcibly  intercept,  his  return  to  Canaan.  Jacob  so  un- 
derstood it  (xxxii.  12,  E.  V.,  ver.  11) ;  and  the  whole 
narrative  shows  that  Esau's  change  of  mind  was  due 
to  Jacob's  earnest  wrestling  for  the  divine  blessing  in 
his  alarming  situation  (xxxii.  28).  That  Rebekah's  nurse 
first  came  with  Jacob  from  Mesopotamia  cannot  be  in- 
ferred from  XXXV.  8,  which  therefore  does  not  contra- 
dict xxiv.  59.  The  general  statement  that  Jacob's  sons 
were  born  in  Paddan-aram  (xxxv.  26)  is  true  of  all  but 
Benjamin,  whose  birth  near  Ephrath  had  just  been  re- 
corded (vs.  16-18)  ;  to  insist  upon  this  as  a  discrepancy  is, 

there  recorded  preceded  the  sentence  in  vi.  8.  and  consequently  would 
not  have  heen  inconsistent  with  it,  even  if  it  had  had  the  meaning 
which  he  wrongly  attributes  to  it. 


REPETITIONS   AND   DISCREPANCIES  537 

on  the  critics'  own  theory,  to  charge  the  redactor  with  a 
negligence  as  great  as  would  be  attributable  to  the  original 
writer  on  the  theory  of  the  imity  of  the  book.     If  the  lat- 
ter is  not  conceivable,  neither  is  the  former.     The  sup-par- 
ent discrepancy  between  xxvi.  34 ;  xxviii.  9  ;  and  xxxvi. 
2,  3,  as  to  the  names  of  Esau's  wives,  is  capable  of  ready 
reconciliation,  as  was  shown  in  the  discussion  of  ch.  xxxvi. 
(pp.  420  sqq.).     The  alleged  discrepancy,  in  regard  to 
Joseph's  Egyptian  master,  between  xxxvii.  36  and  xxxix. 
1 ;  xL  4,  does  not  exist  (pp.  457  sqq.).     In  reporting  to 
the  steward  their  discovery  of  the  money  in  their  sacks 
(xliii.  21),  Joseph's  brethren  may  perhaps  combine  with 
theii-   partial   discovery   at   the   inn  what   they  learned 
more  fully  on  reaching  home  (xlii.  27,  35)  ;  but  even  this 
is  not  certain  (pp.  479,  480 j.     Cain's  apprehension  that 
he  might  be  slain  for  the  mui-der  of  his  brother  (iv. 
14,  15)  is  not  "  enigmatical,"  if  the  possible  increase  of 
Adam's  family  in  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  (v.  3)  be 
considered  ;  nor  his  building  a  "  city "  (iv.  17),  if  it  be 
remembered  that  a  fortified  nomadic  encampment  would 
be  so  called  in  Hebrew  (pp.  36,  37). 

6.  "  The  chronology  does  not  agree  with  the  narra- 
tives." It  is  thought  incredible  that  Sarah  should  have 
attracted  Pharaoh  (xii,  11  sqq.)  when  sixty-five  years  of 
age  (xii.  4  ;  xvii.  17),  or  Abimelech  when  she  was  ninety 
(xx.  2) ;  but  this  overlooks  patriarchal  longevity.  Ish- 
mael  is  not  represented  in  xxi.  14  sqq.  to  be  younger  than 
xvii.  24,  25 ;  xxi,  5,  8  would  make  him.  There  is  no  in- 
consistency between  Isaac's  apprehending  that  his  end 
was  near  (xxvii.  1,  2,  7,  10,  41),  and  his  actually  living 
many  years  longer  (xxxv.  28).  It  is  not  Rachel  but  Leah 
that  is  meant  in  xxxvii.  10,  so  that  there  is  no  conflict 
with  xxxv.  19,  which  records  Rachel's  death.  The  time 
allowed  for  the  birth  of  Jacob's  children  (xxx.  25  sqq. ; 
xxxi.  38,  41)  is  short,  but  not  too  short.     See  p.  348.     If 


538  coNcujsioisr 

the  list  of  Jacob's  descendants  in  xlvi.  8-27  contains,  as 
is  probable,  a  few  names  of  those  born  after  the  descent 
into  Egypt,  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  preceding  his- 
tory. There  is  no  implication  in  1.  21  that  the  years  of 
famine  were  still  continuing,  and  accordingly  no  discre])- 
ancy  with  the  previous  account  of  their  duration. 

7.  "  Narratives  in  which  certain  parts  do  not  accord 
with  the  rest,  e.g.,  xxxi,  48-50,"  where  there  is  no  discord 
but  that  created  by  critical  manipulation ;  "  or  the  end 
does  not  accord  with  the  beginning,  e.g.,  xxiv.  62-67," 
where  the  discord  is  purely  imaginary. 

The  contrarieties  and  discrepancies,  of  which  such 
account  is  made  as  indicative  of  a  diversity  of  sources, 
thus  disappear  upon  inspection,  being  mostly  due  to  the 
improper  identification  of  distinct  events,  or  to  a  critical 
partition  by  which  passages  are  severed  from  their  con- 
nection and  interpreted  at  variance  with  it.^ 


THE  DIVINE  NAMES 

It  is  claimed,  however,  that  the  narratives  of  Genesis 
and  of  the  Pentateuch  arrange  themselves  into  continu- 
ous strata,  each  of  which  consistently  preserves  the  same 
style  and  diction  and  general  character,  while  differing 
in  a  marked  degree  from  the  others  in  these  respects ; 
and  that  the  discrepancies  which  are  alleged  correspond 
with,  and  are  corroborated  by,  these  diversities  of  lan- 

'  The  ease  witli  which  narratives  of  unquestioned  unity  can  be  sun- 
dered by  the  same  methods  that  are  employed  in  the  partition  of  Gene- 
sis and  the  Pentateuch,  and  with  the  same  result  of  apparent  discrep- 
ancies between  the  sundered  parts,  is  illustrated  in  my  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  119-125.  The  same  thing  is  shown  in  a  very 
effective  manner,  in  application  to  an  entire  book,  in  Romans  Dissected, 
by  B.  D.  McRealshara,  the  pseudonym  of  Dr.  C,  M.  Mead,  of  Hartford 
Theological  Seminary. 


THE  DIVINE   NAMES  539 

guage  and  ideas.  It  is  hence  inferred  that  Genesis  must 
be  a  compilation  from  distinct  documents,  which  can  be 
separated  from  one  another  by  appropriate  tests,  and 
restored  in  a  good  measure  to  their  original  form. 

A  prominent  place  is  here  given  to  the  criterion  af- 
forded by  the  divine  names.  Certain  paragraphs  and 
sections  make  exclusive  use  of  Elohim,  Avhile  others 
characteristically  employ  Jehovah,  when  speaking  of  the 
Supreme  Being.  These  are  called  respectively  Elohist 
and  Jehovist  sections,  and  are  attributed  to  writers  hav- 
ing different  proclivities  in  this  respect.  But  it  has 
been  found  impossible  to  divide  these  sections  so  that 
they  shall  correspond  with  the  alternation  of  the  divine 
names. 

Thus,  Elohim  occurs  in  Jehovist  sections,  viz.  :  iii.  1, 
3,  5,  in  the  conversation  of  Eve  with  the  serpent ;  iv.  25, 
where  Seth  is  substituted  for  murdered  Abel;  vii.  9, 
in  the  Jehovist's  account  of  Noah's  entry  into  the  ark ; 
ix.  27,  in  the  blessing  upon  Japheth  in  distinction  from 
Shem  (ver.  26) ;  xxxi.  50,  in  Laban's  covenanting  with 
Jacob ;  xxxii.  29,  31  (E.  V.  vs.  28,  30),  Jacob's  wrestling 
with  the  angel  (so  "Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Kautzsch)  ; 
xxxiii.  5,  10,  11,  in  Jacob's  interview  with  Esau ;  xxxix. 
9,  Joseph's  reply  to  the  solicitations  of  Potiphar's  wife  ; 
xliii.  29,  Joseph  greeting  Benjamin  ;  xliv.  16,  Judah's 
confession.  El  Shaddai  also  occurs  in  a  Jehovist  section 
(xliii.  14),  and  Shaddai  (xlix.  25),  which  are  reckoned 
characteristics  of  the  Elohist. 

Jehovah  also  occurs  in  paragraphs  attributed  to  the 
Elohist,  where  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  it,  or  the 
clause  containing  it,  has  been  inserted  by  the  redactor. 
Thus  four  times  in  xv.  1,  2,  7,  8,  the  vision  granted  to 
Abraham ;  once  in  xvii.  1,  where  Jehovah  appears  to 
him  ;  again,  xx.  18,  where  he  interferes  for  the  protection 
of  Sarah ;  xxi.  lb,  where  he  fulfils  his  promise  to  Sarah ; 


540  CONCLUSION 

xxii.  2,  Moriali,  wliicli  is  compounded  with  an  abbre- 
viated form  of  Jehovah,  and  ver.  11,  the  angel  of  Jeho- 
vah ;  also  xxviii.  21,  in  Jacob's  vow. 

In  other  cases  the  admission  that  the  divine  names 
occur  in  the  wrong  document  is  only  escaped  by  cutting 
the  clauses  that  contain  them  out  of  their  connection  as 
insertions  from  another  source,  or  by  sundering  passages 
that  manifestly  belong  together.  Thus  the  last  clause  of 
vii.  16  is  sundered  from  the  rest  of  the  verse  notwith- 
standing the  manifest  contrast  between  Jehovah,  who 
shut  Noah  in  the  ark,  and  Eloliim,  who  gave  command 
for  the  preservation  of  the  inferior  creatures.  In  xiv. 
22,  Jehovah  is  held  to  be  an  insertion  by  the  redactor, 
though  it  represents  God  as  known  to  Abraham  in  dis- 
tinction from  what  he  was  to  Melchizedek.  Abimelech 
covenants  with  Abraham  at  Beersheba,  and  speaks  of 
God  as  Elohim  (xxi.  22-32) ;  Abraham  worshipping  there 
calls  upon  Jehovah  (ver.  33) ;  but  the  critics  ignoring 
the  real  reason  of  the  change  of  names,  regard  the  latter 
as  an  insertion  from  J  in  a  narrative  of  the  Elohist.  In 
cli.  xxii.  Elohim  demands  the  sacrifice,  Jehovah  stays  the 
patriarch's  hand  (pp.  284,  285) ;  the  critics  attribute  the 
latter  to  a  different  writer,  though  it  is  an  essential  part  of 
the  narrative.  Isaac's  blessing  pronounced  upon  Jacob 
(xxvii.  27,  28)  is  rent  asunder  because  Jehovah  and  Elo- 
him occur  in  successive  clauses,  as  often  elsewhere  in  the 
parallelisms  of  poetry.  Jacob's  dream  (xxviii.  12-17)  is 
partitioned  because  Elohim  alternates  with  Jehovah,  so 
that  he  falls  asleep  in  one  document  and  wakes  up  in  the 
other.  The  continuous  narrative  of  the  birth  of  Jacob's 
children  (ch.  xxix.,  xxx.)  is  parcelled  between  the  Jeho- 
vist  and  the  Elohist  in  a  very  remarkable  manner.  Ch. 
XXXV.  5  is  cut  out  of  an  Elohist  connection  solely  and 
avowedly  because  it  alludes  to  a  preceding  Jehovist  nar- 
rative.    In  xlviii.  8-11  Israel  points  to  the  Jehovist  and 


THE   DIVINE   NAMES  541 

Elohim  to  the  Eloliist,  so  that  a  partition  can  only 
be  made  by  confusing  the  entire  passage.  Wellhau- 
sen  gives  it  up;  but  Dillmann  carries  it  unflinchingly 
through. 

In  fact  the  partition  hypothesis  is  based  upon  a  per- 
sistent disregard  of  the  real  reason  which  governs  the 
employment  of  the  divine  names,  that  being  attributed 
to  the  mechanical  explanation  of  a  diversity  of  writers 
which  results  from  the  difference  of  meaning  and  usage 
of  these  names  themselves.  The  critics  themselves  are 
obliged  to  admit  that  the  Jehovist  uses  both  names  as  he 
has  occasion.  This  confession  completely  undermines 
the  hypothesis ;  for  it  is  placing  the  use  of  these  names 
upon  another  footing  than  the  mere  habit  of  different 
writers,  and  acknowledging  that  there  is  an  appropriate- 
ness in  employing  one  rather  than  the  other  in  certain 
connections. 

The  distinction  between  these  names  is  universally 
admitted,  as  certified  by  the  usage  of  the  entire  Hebrew 
Bible.  It  is  stated  by  Kuenen  in  a  manner  which  re- 
quires but  slight  correction  in  order  to  solve  the  whole 
mystery,  and  to  show  that  they  afford  no  ground  what- 
ever for  assuming  the  existence  of  an  Elohist  and  a 
Jehovist.  He  says  ("  Hexateuch,"  p.  56),  "  The  original 
distinction  between  Yahwe  and  Elohim  very  often  ac- 
counts for  the  use  of  one  of  these  appellations  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  other."  Again  (p.  58,  note  19),  1.  "  When 
the  God  of  Israel  is  placed  over-against  the  gods  of  the 
Gentiles,  the  former  is  naturally  described  by  the  prop- 
er name  Yahwe.  2.  When  Gentiles  are  introduced  as 
speaking,  they  use  the  word  Elohim  [unless  they  specifi- 
cally mean  the  God  of  the  chosen  race,  when  they  call 
him  by  his  proper  name,  Jehovah].  So,  too,  the  Israel- 
ites, when  speaking  to  Gentiles.  3.  Where  a  contrast 
between  the  divine  and  the  human  is  in  the  mind  of  the 


542  CONCLUSION 

author,  Eloliim  is,  at  any  rate,  the  more  suitable  word." 
[4.  When  God  is  spoken  of  in  those  general  aspects  of 
his  being  in  which  he  is  related  alike  to  the  whole  world 
and  to  all  mankind,  e.g.,  in  creation  and  providence,  Elo- 
him  is  the  proper  word ;  but  when  he  is  spoken  of  in  his 
special  relation  to  the  chosen  race  as  the  God  of  revela- 
tion and  of  redemption,  and  the  object  of  their  worship, 
Jehovah  is  the  appropriate  term.]  ^ 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  critical  partition  of 
Genesis,  though  shaped  with  a  view  to  adapt  it  to  the 
occurrence  of  the  divine  names,  does  not  in  fact  corre- 
spond with  them,  and  consequently  cannot  afford  an 
adequate  explanation  of  them.  And  in  the  other  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  the  discrepancy  is  greater  still.^  On 
the  other  hand,  the  simple  principles  above  stated  meet 
the  case  precisely.  It  has  been  shown  in  detail  in  the 
former  part  of  this  volume  that  every  instance  in  which 
Elohim  or  Jehovah  is  found  in  Genesis  is  capable  of 
ready  explanation.  It  will  not  be  necessary  here  to  re- 
peat at  length  what  was  there  said.  It  will  be  sufficient 
to  indicate  briefly  a  few  leading  facts,  which  conclusively 
demonstrate  that  the  partition  hypothesis  has  no  support 
from  the  divine  names. 

One  thing  which  arrests  attention  at  the  outset  is  the 
great  predominance  of  the  name  Jehovah  in  three  clearly 

'  In  the  above  quotation  from  Kuenen  "  Gentiles  "  has  been  substi- 
tuted for  "heathen"  as  better  conformed  to  English  usage.  Correc- 
tions and  additions  are  in  brackets.  Kuenen  says  that  the  second 
"  rule  is  often  violated  by  an  oversight,  and  the  Gentiles  are  made  to 
speak  of  Yahwe  (Gen.  xxvi.  28,  29  ;  1  Sam.  xxix.  6  ;  1  Kin.  v.  21,  E. 
v.,  ver.  7)."  This  is  corrected  in  the  text.  There  is  no  "oversight" 
in  the  passages  referred  to,  which  simply  suggest  the  proper  limitation 
of  the  rule.  Abimelech  says  "Jehovah"  because  he  means  the  God  of 
Isaac  ;  Achish  does  the  same  because  he  makes  appeal  to  the  God  of 
David,  and  Hiram  because  he  refers  to  the  God  of  whom  Solomon  had 
spoken  in  the  verses  immediately  preceding  as  "  Jehovah  my  God." 

2  See  my  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  91-99. 


THE   DIVINE   NAMES  543 

marked  sections  of  the  Pentateuch,  viz.,  Gen.  ii.  4-iv.; 
xii.-xxvi. ;  Ex.  iii.-Deut.  xxxiv.  The  explanation  of  this 
singular  fact  lies  upon  the  surface.  These  sections 
record  three  successive  stages  in  the  self-revelation  of 
the  Most  High  to  our  first  parents,  to  the  patriarchs,  to 
Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel.  They  relate  to  the 
tliree  great  epochs  in  the  development  of  God's  earthly 
kingdom  and  the  unfolding  of  his  scheme  of  grace. 
There  is  first  God's  manifestation  of  himself  to  man  in 
his  primitive  estate,  and  again  after  his  guilty  trespass  in 
the  primal  promise  of  mercy,  the  acceptance  of  Abel's 
worship,  the  ineffectual  remonstrance  with  Cain,  who  is 
finally  banished  from  the  divine  presence,  while  God  is 
acceptably  invoked  in  the  family  of  Seth. 

The  next  important  step  in  the  establishment  of  God's 
kingdom  among  men  was  his  special  manifestation  of 
himself  to  Abraham,  who  was  called  from  the  mass  of 
mankind  to  be  the  head  of  a  chosen  race,  among  whom 
true  religion  might  be  nurtured  with  a  view  to  the  ulti- 
mate blessing  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

The  third  step  in  this  divine  plan  of  salvation  was 
God's  manifestation  of  himself  to  Moses,  and  through 
him  to  Israel,  in  delivering  them  from  the  bondage  of 
Egypt  and  organizing  them  as  the  people  of  God. 

As  Jehovah  is  the  name  appropriate  to  the  Most  High 
as  the  God  of  revelation  and  of  redemption,  there  is  a 
manifest  propriety  in  its  employment,  as  in  actual  fact  it 
is  predominantly  employed,  at  just  these  signal  epochs 
in  which  this  aspect  of  his  being  is  most  conspicuously 
exhibited.  It  requires  no  assumption  of  a  Jehovist  writer 
to  account  for  what  thus  follows  from  the  nature  of  the 
case.  That  Jehovah  should  fall  more  into  the  back- 
ground in  the  intervals  between  these  signal  periods  of 
self-revelation  is  also  what  might  be  expected.  Yet  it 
does  not  disappear  entirely.     It  recurs  with   sufficient 


544  coNCLusioisr 

frequency  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  continuity  of  that 
divine  purpose  of  salvation,  which  is  never  abandoned, 
and  is  never  entirely  merged  in  mere  general  providen- 
tial control. 

As  Elohim  is  the  term  by  which  God  is  denoted  in  his 
relation  to  the  world  at  large,  in  distinction  from  his 
special  relation  to  his  own  people,  it  is  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  creation  of  heaven  and  earth  and  all  that 
they  contain  is  ascribed  to  him  as  Elohim  (Gen.  i.).  It 
is  equally  natural  that  when  the  world,  which  he  had 
made  very  good,  had  become  so  corrupt  as  to  frustrate 
the  end  of  its  creation,  the  Creator,  Elohim,  should  in- 
terfere to  arrest  this  degeneracy  by  a  flood,  and  should 
at  the  same  time  devise  measures  to  preserve  the  vari- 
ous species  of  living  things  in  order  to  replenish  the 
earth  once  more  (vi.  11-ix.  17).  Here,  too,  was  a  case  for 
Jehovah's  interference  likemse  to  preserve  his  plan  of 
grace  and  salvation  from  utter  failure  by  sweeping  away 
the  corrupt  mass  and  preserving  pious  Noah  and  his 
family  from  its  contamination  and  its  ruin.  Hence, 
while  in  the  description  of  this  catastrophe  Elohim  pre- 
dominates, Jehovah  is  introduced  whenever  this  special 
feature  is  particularly  alluded  to  (vi.  1-8 ;  vii.  1-5,  16b ; 
viii.  20-22).  And  Jehovah  interferes  again  to  avert  the 
new  peril  involved  in  the  impious  attempt  at  Babel  (xi. 
1-9) ;  and  he  is  not  unobservant  of  the  ambitious  designs 
of  the  kingdom  erected  there  (x.  8-10). 

The  constancy  with  which  the  name  Jehovah  appears 
in  the  life  of  Abraham,  from  ch.  xii.  onward,  is  first  inter- 
rupted in  ch.  xvii.,  where  Jehovah  appears  in  the  open- 
ing verse  as  God  Almighty,  and  throughout  the  chap- 
ter is  spoken  of  as  Elohim,  to  indicate  that  the  God 
of  Abraham  is  likewise  the  God  of  the  universe.  The 
reason  is  apparent.  God  had  promised  to  make  of  him 
a  great  nation,  to  give  his  posterity  the  land  of  Canaan, 


THE   DTVINE   NAMES  545 

and  through  them  to  bless  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
These  promises  had  been  repeated  from  time  to  time. 
Four  and  twenty  years  had  now  passed  of  anxious  wait- 
ing. But  the  child,  upon  whom  the  fulfilment  of  all 
these  promises  was  conditioned,  was  not  yet  born. 
Meanwhile  in  Sarah's  advancing  age,  and  his  own,  all 
natural  hope  of  offspring  had  vanished.  Hence  this  appeal 
to  the  divine  omnipotence,  which  was  able  to  accomplish 
what  was  above  and  beyond  the  powers  of  nature,  in  or- 
der to  confirm  the  patriarch's  faith  in  the  promise,  now 
renewed  and  made  more  specific  than  ever  before,  that 
Isaac  should  be  born  the  next  year.  There  is  no  need 
of  an  Elohist  writer  to  account  for  the  unvarying  repeti- 
tion of  Elohim  in  this  chapter,  nor  for  its  recurrence  in 
xxi.  2,  4,  G,  where  ch.  xvii.  is  plainly  referred  to. 

The  next  occurrence  of  Elohim  is  in  xix.  29,  and  the 
reason  is  again  apparent.  Lot  is  now  finally  severed 
from  all  further  connection  with  Abraham,  and  God  is 
henceforth  Elohim  to  him  as  to  all  aliens.  Elohim  is 
also  used  in  dealing  with  Abimelech  (ch.  xx.  ;  xxi.  22,  23), 
though  it  is  still  Jehovah  who  interferes  for  the  protec- 
tion of  Sarah  inGerar  (xx.  18),  as  he  had  previously  done 
in  Egypt  (xii.  17),  and  Abraham  continues  to  call  on  the 
name  of  Jehovah  (xxi.  33),  as  in  xii.  8.  So  when  Hagar 
and  Ishmael  are  finally  sent  away  from  Abraham  (xxi. 
9-21),  and  Hagar  is  no  longer  counted  a  member  of  his 
household,  as  she  was  in  xvi.  7-14,  God  is  Elohim  also  to 
the  children  of  Heth  (xxiii.  6).  Elohim  the  Creator  might 
rightfully  demand  that  the  child  which  he  had  given 
should  be  sacrificed  to  him  (xxii.  1-10) ;  but  Jehovah 
stayed  the  patriarch's  hand  (vs.  11  sqq.)  ;  the  spiritual 
surrender  was  all  that  he  required.  Every  instance  in 
which  Elohim  is  used  in  the  life  of  Abraham  thus  explains 
itself ;  and  there  is  no  need  of  having  recoiu'se  to  an  Elo- 
hist writer  to  accoun-t  for  its  appearance. 
35 


546  CONCLUSION 

The  God  of  Abraham  was  also  the  God  of  Isaac. 
Hence  the  constant  recurrence  of  Jehovah  in  xxv.  19- 
xxvii.,  with  the  single  exception  of  Elohim  as  a  poetic 
parallel  in  Isaac's  blessing  (xxvii.  28).  For  Elohim,  in 
xxv.  11,  xxviii.  4,  see  pp.  310,  332. 

The  name  Jehovah  is  less  prominent  in  the  chapters 
that  follow  for  two  reasons  chiefly  :  1.  The  manifestations 
of  Jehovah  and  the  gradual  unfolding  of  his  gracious 
purposes,  which  marked  the  early  portion  of  tJie  patri- 
archal period,  were  sufficient  for  that  stage  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  divine  plan.  It  was  enough  to  repeat 
the  promises  already  made  to  Abraham  and  Isaac.  Rev- 
elations surpassing  these  were  reserved  for  a  later  stage, 
when  the  time  arrived  to  fulfil  the  promises  now  made 
and  for  Jehovah  to  make  himself  known  to  Israel  by 
manifestations  of  his  power  and  grace  such  as  their 
fathers  had  never  witnessed  (Ex.  vi.  3).  2.  The  lives  of 
Jacob  and  Joseph,  which  occupy  nearly  all  the  rest  of 
Genesis,  were  spent  for  the  most  jiart  away  from  the 
holy  land,  amid  Gentile  surroundings,  which  made  it 
appropriate  to  use  the  name  Elohim. 

And  yet  Jehovah  recurs  often  enough  to  show  that  his 
special  relation  to  the  chosen  race  is  steadfastly  main- 
tained. Jehovah  reveals  himself  to  Jacob  on  his  flight 
from  home  (xxviii.  13  sqq.) ;  is  recognized  in  the  first 
children  born  to  Leah  (xxix.  31-35),  and  in  the  promise 
of  yet  another  son  to  Rachel  (xxx.  24),  to  complete  the 
patriarch's  family ;  is  acknowledged  as  the  source  of 
blessing  even  to  Laban  for  Jacob's  sake  (xxx.  27,  30) ;  and 
at  length  bids  Jacob  return  to  the  land  of  his  fathers 
(xxxi.  3).  It  is  Jehovah  who  punishes  the  wicked  sons 
of  Judah  (xxxviii.  7,  10)  ;  and  who  protects  and  blesses 
Joseph  in  servitude  (xxxix.  2-5),  and  in  prison  (vs.  21, 
23).  It  is  Jehovah  for  whose  salvation  Jacob  waits  to 
the  last  moment  of  his  life  (xlix.  18).     The  appropriate- 


THE   DIVINE   NAMES  547 

ness  of  Elohim  throughout  these  chapters  has  been  al- 
ready shown  in  the  discussion  of  each  passage  in  which 
it  occurs. 

The  divisive  hypothesis  was  invented  to  account  for 
the  alternation  of  Elohim  and  Jehovah.  We  have  seen 
that  notwithstanding  all  the  ingenuity  expended  upon  it 
it  still  fails  to  accord  with  the  actual  occurrence  of  these 
names.  It  further  appears  that  it  is  not  needed  to  ex- 
plain the  alternation  of  these  names,  the  real  reason  of 
which  lies  in  the  significance  of  these  names  themselves. 
It  remains  to  be  added  that  it  cannot  render,  and  does 
not  even  pretend  to  render,  a  rational  account  of  the  em- 
ployment of  these  names  and  their  remarkable  distribu- 
tion as  this  has  now  been  exhibited.  It  has  nothing  to 
suggest  but  the  j^roclivities  of  different  writers.  The 
Elohist  is  supposed  to  be  governed  by  the  theory  that 
the  name  Jehovah  was  unknown  until  the  time  of  Moses; 
he  therefore  makes  no  previous  use  of  it.  The  Jehovist 
held  that  it  was  in  use  from  the  earliest  ages  and  employs 
it  accordingly.  Each  is  supposed  to  use  that  name  to 
which  he  is  addicted  habitually,  and  without  reference 
to  its  peculiar  signification  ;  and  yet  we  find  these  names 
to  be  discriminatingly  used  throughout.  How  is  this  to 
be  accounted  for  ?  How  has  it  come  to  pass  that  each 
writer  has  happened  to  limit  himself  to  recording  just 
those  matters,  which  call  for  the  use  of  that  particular 
divine  name  which  he  is  in  the  habit  of  employing, 
and  this,  though  there  is  no  sort  of  connection  between 
the  theories  which  govern  their  use  of  the  divine  names 
and  these  particular  portions  of  the  primeval  or  patri- 
archal history?  The  divisive  hypothesis  can  give  no 
reason  why  the  Elohist  rather  than  the  Jehovist  should 
have  given  an  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
and  all  that  it  contains  ;  nor  why  the  Jehovist  rather  than 
the  Elohist  should  have  described  the  beginnings  of  God's 


548  COT^^CLtTSlOlT 

earthly  kingdom  in  man's  primeval  condition  and  the  mercy 
shown  him  after  his  fall ;  nor  why  the  Elohist  never  speaks 
of  an  altar  or  sacrifice  or  invocation  or  any  act  of  patri- 
archal worship ;  ^  nor  why  Jehovah  occurs  without  inter- 
ruj)tion  in  the  life  of  Abraham  until  in  ch.  xvii.  the  di- 
vine omnipotence  is  pledged  to  fulfil  the  oft-repeated 
but  long-delayed  promise  ;  nor  why  Elohim  regularly  oc- 
curs when  Gentiles  are  concerned,  unless  specific  refer- 
ence is  made  to  the  God  of  the  patriarchs.  Ml  this  is 
purely  accidental  on  the  divisive  hjpothesis.  But  such 
evident  adaptation  is  not  the  work  of  chance.  It  can 
only  result  from  the  intelligent  employment  of  the  di- 
vine names  in  accordance  with  their  proper  meaning  and 
recognized  usage. 

DICTION,   STYLE,   AND   CONCEPTION 

Kuenen  ^  tells  us  that  "  the  history  of  critical  investi- 
gation has  shown  that  far  too  much  weight  has  often 
been  laid  on  agreement  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names. 
It  is  w^ell,  therefore,  to  utter  a  warning  against  laying  an 
exaggerated  stress  on  this  one  phenomenon."  "  It  is  but 
one  of  the  many  marks  which  must  be  duly  observed  in 
tracing  the  origin  and  the  mutual  relations  of  the  pas- 
sages." It  is  claimed  that  each  of  these  divine  names  is 
regularly  associated  with  a  characteristic  diction,  mode 
of  conception,  and  style  of  expression,  which  are  clearly 

>  The  suggestion  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Elohist  worship  was  first  in- 
troduced by  Moses  is  absurd  upon  its  face,  see  pp.  16B  seq.,  364  ;  and  it  is 
without  the  slightest  warrant  in  any  Scriptural  statement.  Besides  it 
leaves  the  difficulty  unsolved.  There  is  no  natural  connection  between 
his  idea  that  God  was  exclusively  called  Elohim  in  the  patriarchal  age, 
and  the  notion  that  he  was  never  worshipped  then.  How  did  he  happen 
to  be  possessed  of  just  such  a  notion  as  kept  him  from  an  inappropriate 
use  of  Elohim  ? 

"  Hexateuch,  p.  61,  note  29,  and  p.  58. 


DICTION,    STYLE,    AND   CONCEPTION  549 

indicative  of  distinct  writers.     But  upon  examination  this 
proves  to  be  altogether  fallacious. 

There  is  evidently  no  significance  in  the  fact  that  a 
given  series  of  sections  or  paragraphs  contains  words  and 
phrases  that  are  not  found  in  another  series  in  which 
there  was  no  occasion  to  employ  them.  And  that  the 
same  thought  is  differently  expressed  in  two  different 
passages  does  not  necessarily  prove  that  they  are  by  dis- 
tinct writers.  Long  lists  of  words  of  this  description 
are  paraded  by  critics  as  evidence  of  diversity  of  author- 
ship, which  are  of  no  force  whatever;  and  Avhich  could 
be  paralleled  with  perfect  ease  from  the  acknowledged 
works  of  well-known  authors  in  ancient  or  in  modern 
times.  Critics  are  never  at  a  loss  for  arguments  from 
diction  to  sustain  even  the  most  extravagant  positions. 
The  plausible  use  that  can  be  made  of  it  where  it  is 
plainly  of  no  account,  and  the  frequency  with  which  it  is  ■ 
disregarded  by  critics  themselves  when  it  does  not  serve 
their  purpose,  shows  how  precarious  this  style  of  argu- 
ment is,  and  how  important  it  is  to  guard  against  being 
misled  by  deceptive  appearances. 

The  earlier  forms  of  the  divisive  hypothesis  were 
wrecked  by  their  inability  to  establish  a  diversity  of  dic- 
tion between  the  Elohist  and  the  Jehovist.  All  sorts  of 
subterfuges  were  resorted  to  in  the  endeavor  to  account 
for  the  fact  that  in  a  multitude  of  passages  they  were 
quite  indistinguishable.  At  length  Hupfeld  came  to  the 
rescue  with  his  suggestion,  since  accepted  as  a  veritable 
discovery,  that  there  were  two  Elohists,  P  and  E,  who 
were  alike  in  their  use  of  Elohim,  but  differed  greatly  in 
every  other  respect.  P  is  supposed  to  contrast  strongly 
with  J  (the  Jehovist),  while  it  is  exceeding  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  discriminate  between  E  and  J,  except  in 
their  use  of  the  divine  names. 

There  are  some  things  about  this  discovery  of  Hup- 


550  CONCLUSION 

feld  which  have  a  very  suspicions  look.  In  the  first 
place,  so  large  a  share  of  the  Elohist  passages  is  sur- 
rendered to  E  as  to  destroy  all  semblance  of  continuity 
in  P.  It  was  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  the  supple- 
ment hypothesis  that  the  Elohist,  though  he  had  little 
to  say  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  nevertheless  gave  a  full 
account  of  the  patriarch  Jacob,  the  real  founder  of  the 
nation  of  Israel.  But  with  the  exception  of  two  events 
in  the  life  of  Abraham,  recorded  in  chs.  xvii.  and  xxiii., 
nothing  is  assigned  to  P  in  the  entire  patriarchal  period 
but  a  few  disconnected  sentences,  scattered  here  and 
there,  which  are  detached  from  the  narrative  to  which 
they  belong. 

Another  suspicious  circumstance  is  that  P  breaks  o£f 
so  near  the  point  where  E  begins.  While  sundry  at- 
tempts have  been  made  to  discover  fragments  of  E  in 
earlier  chapters  of  Genesis,  it  is  generally  confessed  that 
ch.  XX.  is  the  first  passage  that  can  be  confidently  attrib- 
uted to  this  document.  All  Elohist  passages  prior  to  ch. 
XX.  are  said  to  belong  to  P ;  ch.  xx.  and  all  subsequent 
Elohist  passages  belong  to  E,  with  the  sole  exception  of 
ch.  xxiii.  and  a  few  meagre  snatches  found  elsewhere. 
This  certainly  looks  like  rending  asunder  what  belongs 
together.  And  the  natural  conclusion  would  seem  to  be 
that  the  difierence  of  diction  and  style  between  the  Elo- 
hist and  the  Jehovist,  supposed  to  be  made  out  from  a 
comparison  of  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis,  is  nullified 
by  the  later  chapters  in  which  no  such  difference  is  per- 
ceptible. The  critics  have  hastily  drawTi  an  inference 
from  incomplete  data,  which  a  wider  induction  shows  to 
be  unfounded  (p.  251). 

Moreover,  the  alleged  diversity  of  diction  and  style 
between  P  and  the  other  so-called  documents  is  ade- 
quately explained  by  the  character  of  the  critical  parti- 
tion without  having  recourse  to  the  assumption  of  dis- 


DICTION,    STYLE,    AND   CONCEPTION  651 

tinct  writers.  The  quantity  and  the  quality  of  what  is 
severally  attributed  to  the  different  documents  solve  the 
whole  mystery.  As  a  necessary  sequence  from  the  scanty 
portion  allotted  to  P  compared  with  the  amount  assigned 
to  J  and  E,  and  especially  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
matter  given  to  P  in  distinction  from  the  others,  P  has 
the  fewest  words,  and  a  different  class  of  words,  and  a 
style  adapted  to  the  nature  of  its  contents.  The  entire 
body  of  ordinary  narrative  is  shared  between  J  and  E, 
while  P  has  only  extraordinary  events  like  the  creation 
and  deluge,  and  certain  incidents  which  do  not  enter  into 
the  texture  of  the  history,  but  constitute  rather  the  frame- 
work within  which  it  is  adjusted,  such  as  genealogies, 
dates,  births,  deaths,  and  migrations.  This  being  the 
case,  the  peculiarities  of  diction  and  style  follow  as  a 
matter  of  course.  The  words  and  jDhrases  and  mode  of 
expression  appropriate  to  one  have  no  natural  connection 
with  the  other.  When  the  matter  is  similar,  as  in  J  and 
E,  the  diction  and  style  are  alike.  When  the  matter  is 
different,  as  in  P  compared  with  JE,  the  diction  and 
style  are  altered.  This  is  just  what  is  to  be  expected 
under  the  circumstances,  and  requires  no  diversity  of 
writers  to  explain  it,  unless  it  be  seriously  contended 
that  a  historian  cannot  describe  great  catastrophes,  nor 
incorporate  in  his  work  genealogies,  dates,  births,  deaths, 
migrations,  and  legal  enactments. 

That  the  diversity  of  diction  and  style  observable  in 
P,  as  compared  with  JE,  is  due  to  the  difference  in 
matter,  both  in  amount  and  in  character,  and  not  to  a 
diversity  of  writers,  further  appears  from  an  inspection 
of  the  criteria  by  which  they  are  professedly  discrimi- 
nated. These  are  specified  in  detail  in  the  former  part 
of  this  volume  under  the  head  of  Marks  of  P,  J,  and  E. 
The  words  and  phrases  represented  to  be  characteristic 
of  J  and  E  belong  to  the  common  stock  of  the  language, 


552  CONCLUSION 

such  as  any  writer  or  speaker  might  employ  upon  occa- 
sion, and  which  are  not  found  in  P  for  the  simple  reason 
that  no  passage  is  assigned  to  P  that  calls  for  their  em- 
ployment. On  the  other  hand,  technical  legal  phrases  and 
such  special  terms  as  are  suitable  for  the  particular  mat- 
ters attributed  to  P  form  the  main  stock  of  that  docu- 
ment. The  formality,  verboseness,  and  repetition  imputed 
to  P,  as  contrasted  with  the  easy  and  flowing  style  of  J 
and  E,  find  their  explanation  in  the  precision  due  to  legal 
transactions  (pp.  293  seq.),  the  emphasis  laid  upon  matters 
of  intrinsic  importance  (j)p.  222,  230),  or  which  the  writer 
would  impress  upon  the  mind  of  his  readers  (pp.  18,  101, 
209),  or  the  inevitable  sameness  of  genealogies  (p.  50), 
compared  with  the  varied  scenes,  the  changing  incidents 
and  the  portraitui'e  of  life  and  character  belonging  to  his- 
torical descriptions  (pp.  240  seq.).  And  yet  like  repeti- 
tions, detailed  enumerations,  stereotyped  formulae,  and 
genealogical  tables  are  found  upon  occasion  in  J  and  E 
(pp.  81,  141,  231,  292  ;  ch.  x.  8-19,  21,  24-30,  and  xxii. 
20-24  J  ;  XXV.  1-4  E). 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  when  for  any  reason 
P  is  allowed  a  share  in  ordinary  narrative,  it  becomes  as 
difficult  to  discriminate  between  P  and  J  as  it  is  else- 
where between  J  and  E ;  and  the  separation  has  to  be 
made  on  other  grounds  than  diction  and  style.  A  nota- 
ble instance  is  afforded  in  ch.  xxxiv.  (pp.  388  sqq.),  where 
the  wide  divergence  of  the  critics  shows  how  baseless  the 
partition  is. 

The  total  absence  of  any  reason  for  regarding  P  as  a 
separate  document  is  yet  more  strikingly  apparent  from 
the  shifting  character  of  the  criteria  upon  which  its  rec- 
ognition is  made  to  rest.  Each  separate  portion  of  the 
document  stands  in  this  respect  by  itself,  and  out  of  re- 
lation to  the  rest.  The  marks  insisted  upon  in  any  one 
portion  are,  with  few  exceptions,  absent  from  every  other 


DICTIOISr,    STYLE,    AND    CONCEPTION  653 

throughout  the  Book  of  Genesis,  so  that  different  parts  of 
the  document  are  claimed  for  it  on  wholly  dissimilar 
grounds.  The  narratives  of  the  creation  and  of  the  flood 
have  much  in  common,  since  what  was  made  in  the  former 
perished  in  the  latter,  after  which  the  earth  was  again  re- 
peopled  as  at  the  beginning.  But  only  two  words  or 
phrases  noted  as  characteristic  of  P  in  ch.  i.  recur  again  in 
Genesis  after  ch.  ix.  viz.,  13T  male,  in  connection  with 
circumcision  (chs.  xvii.,  xxxiv.),  and  71211  niS  he  fruitful 
and  multiply  in  the  promises  made  to  Abraham  and  his 
descendants  (pp.  4,  5).  After  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham (ch.  xvii.),  which  recalls  that  with  Noah  (ch.  ix.),  al- 
most every  mark  of  P  in  the  preceding  part  of  Genesis 
disappears  entirely  (pp.  96  sqq.,  141  seq.).  Scarcely  a 
word  or  phrase  that  is  reckoned  characteristic  of  P  in  ch. 
xvii.  or  xxiii.  is  found  in  later  chapters  of  Genesis,  except 
where  the  transaction  of  the  latter  is  explicitly  referred 
to,  or  the  promises  of  the  former  are  repeated  (pp.  231 
sqq.,  296  seq.).  The  migrations  of  the  patriarchs  (xii.  5 ; 
xxxi.  18 ;  xxxvi.  6  ;  xlvi.  6)  are  evidently  recorded  by  the 
same  hand  ;  but  these  are  only  arbitrarily  referred  to  P 
in  spite  of  their  context  (pp.  177  seq.,  188  seq.).  So  with 
other  snatches,  by  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  preserve 
the  continuity  of  P  and  cover  references  made  elsewhere 
in  this  document  (pp.  175  seq.,  180,  187  seq.,  211  seq.). 

J  and  E  are  confessedly  indistinguishable  in  diction 
and  style  (pp.  252  seq.,  271  sqq.,  276,  etc.)  apart  from 
the  use  of  Jehovah  by  the  former  and  Elohim  by  the 
latter.  But  it  has  already  been  shown  that  the  divine 
names  are  regulated  by  their  appropriateness  in  the  con- 
nection, not  by  the  mere  habit  of  different  writers.  The 
only  remaining  ground  for  assuming  that  these  were  dis- 
tinct documents  is  alleged  contrarieties  and  contradictions 
and  so-called  doublets  ;  and  these  have  been  proved  to 
be  imaginary  in  every  individual  instance. 


554  CONCLUSION 

Attempts  have  been  made,  but  without  success,  to  dis- 
cover a  diversity  of  conception  between  the  documents. 
It  has  been  affirmed  that  the  anthroj)omorphisms  of  J 
imply  a  less  exalted  notion  of  the  Supreme  Being  than 
that  of  P  (pp.  31  sqq.,  63,  145,  225)  ;  that  according  to 
P  sacrificial  worship  was  first  introduced  by  Moses  while 
J  speaks  of  offerings  made  by  Cain  and  Abel  (pp.  116 
seq.,  163  seq.) ;  that  in  J,  but  not  in  P,  the  blessing 
through  Abraham  was  to  extend  to  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  {pp.  163,  244) ;  that  it  is  peculiar  to  E  to  record 
revelations  in  dreams  {pp.  260  seq.)  and  the  ministry  of 
angels  (pp.  271,  340).  The  falsity  of  these  positions  has 
been  shown  in  the  passages  referred  to. 

It  should  be  remembered  in  this  discussion  that  the 
so-called  Pentateuchal  documents  do  not  exist  in  their 
separate  state.  We  are  not  comparing  fixed  and  defi- 
nite entities,  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  their  proper 
form.  They  have  been  fashioned  and  their  limits  deter- 
mined by  the  critics  on  the  basis  of  certain  alleged  cri- 
teria. Their  correspondence  with  these  criteria  simply 
results  from  the  mode  of  their  formation,  and  is  no  evi- 
dence of  their  reality.  The  argument  moves  in  a  circle 
and  returns  upon  itself.  The  documents  depend  upon 
the  criteria,  and  the  criteria  upon  the  documents ;  and 
there  is  no  independent  proof  of  either. 

CONTINUITY   OF   GENESIS 

The  positive  and  irrefragable  argument  for  the  unity 
of  Genesis  is  that  it  is  a  continuous  and  connected 
whole,  written  with  a  definite  design  and  upon  an  evi- 
dent plan  which  is  steadfastly  maintained  throughout. 
The  critics  attribute  this  to  the  skill  of  the  redactor 
But  they  impose  upon  him  an  impossible  task.  An 
author  may  draw  his  materials  from  a  great  variety  of 


CONTINUITY   OF  GENESIS  555 

sources,  form  liis  own  conception  of  his  subject,  elabo- 
rate it  after  a  method  of  his  own,  and  thus  give  unity  to 
his  production.  But  a  compiler,  who  simply  weaves  to- 
gether extracts  selected  from  separate  authorities,  has 
not  the  freedom  of  the  author,  and  cannot  do  the  same 
kind  of  work.  He  is  trammelled  by  the  nature  of  his 
undertaking.  He  cannot  reconstruct  his  materials  and 
adapt  them  to  one  another ;  he  must  accept  them  as  he 
finds  them.  And  now,  if  these  authorities,  as  is  alleged, 
were  prepared  with  diiferent  aims  and  from  diverse 
points  of  view,  if  they  are  unlike  in  style  and  diction  and 
discordant  in  their  statements,  he  never  could  produce 
the  semblance  of  unity  in  his  work.  The  difference  of 
texture  would  show  itself  at  the  points  of  junction. 
There  would  inevitably  be  chasms,  and  abrupt  transitions, 
and  a  want  of  harmony  between  the  parts.  Such  a  work 
as  Genesis  could  not  have  been  produced  in  this  way. 

It  is  besides  very  plain  from  a  comparison  of  the 
documents,  as  the  critics  profess  to  reproduce  them,  that 
they  must  have  been  parallel  throughout.  The  same 
events  are  treated  in  each,  and  in  the  same  order,  and  in 
a  manner  so  nearly  resembling  one  another  that  they 
cannot  have  been  altogether  independent  in  their  origin, 
as  the  critics  themselves  admit  (pp.  158  sqq.).^ 

The  text,  as  we  possess  it,  is  harmonious.     It  is  only 

'  Dillmann  says  (Genesis,  Vorbemerkungen,  p.  xiii.)  :  "In  the  pri- 
meval history  there  is  both  in  plan  and  material  an  unmistakable  rela- 
tionship between  J  and  P  (creation,  primitive  state,  Noah's  genealogical 
tree,  the  flood,  table  of  nations)  ;  also  in  the  Abraham  section  and  on- 
ward they  have  some  narratives  in  common  (separation  from  Lot,  de- 
struction of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  history  of  Dinah,  also  xlvii.  1- 
11 ;  xlvii.  29  sqq. ,  cf.  xlix.  29  sqq).  But  elsewhere  in  the  patriarchal 
history,  especially  that  of  Jacob  and  Joseph,  J  is  most  closely  related 
to  E,  so  much  so  that  from  ch.  xxvii.  onward  the  most  of  J's  narratives 
have  their  complete  parallels  in  E.  and  we  must  necessarily  assume 
the  dependence  of  one  upon  the  other." 


556  CONCLUSION" 

when  it  is  resolved  into  the  so-called  documents  that  in- 
consistencies appear.  This  makes  it  evident  that  these 
docmnents  are  not  the  originals  and  Genesis  a  compila- 
tion from  them  ;  but  Genesis  is  the  original,  and  the 
documents  have  been  deduced  from  it.  The  combina- 
tion of  two  or  three  mutually  inconsistent  accounts  will 
not  produce  a  harmonious  and  symmetrical  narrative. 
But  severing  paragraphs  and  clauses  from  their  proper 
connection,  and  interpreting  them  at  variance  with  it 
will  produce  the  appearance  of  discord  and  disagree- 
ment.^ 

CHASMS  IN  THE  DOCUMENTS 

The  real  existence  of  documents  in  Genesis  is  still 
further  discredited  by  the  numerous  and  serious  gaps 
that  occur  in  each  of  them.  P  records  that  in  the  crea- 
tion all  was  made  very  good,  and  that  at  the  flood  the 
earth  was  so  corrupt  that  God  resolved  to  destroy  it,  but 
says  nothing  to  account  for  the  dreadful  change ;  the 
missing  explanation  is  only  to  be  found  in  J  (pp.  35,  78). 
There  is  a  chasm  in  P,  in  the  life  of  Abraham,  between 
chs.  xi.  and  xvii.,  which  the  critics  vainly  seek  to  bridge  by 
scattered  clauses  torn  from  the  connection  to  w  hich  they 
evidently  belong  (pp.  155,  171,  180,  189  seq.,  209  sqq., 
217  sqq.),  as  they  do  with  regard  to  J  in  the  flood  (pp. 
75  sqq.).  P's  life  of  Isaac  consists  of  the  merest  scraps. 
Jacob  goes  to  Paddan-aram  to  get  a  wife,  but  his  entire 
abode  there  is  a  blank  (pp.  316  seq.,  362  sqq.)  that  can 
only  be  filled  up  from  J  and  E.  Joseph  is  named  by  P 
among  the  children  of  Jacob  born  in  Paddan-aram  (xxxv. 
24),  but  not  another  word  is  said  about  him^  until  we 
are  suddenly  informed  (xli.  46)  that  he  was  thirty  years 

1  See  my  Higher  Criticism  of  tlie  Pentateucli,  pp.  119  sqq. 

'  The  critics  are  divided  about  au  isolated  clause  in  xxxvii.  2,  p. 446. 


CHASMS   IK   THE   DOCtTMElSrTS  557 

old  when  lie  stood  before  Pharaoh.  How  he  came  to  be 
in  Egypt,  and  what  led  to  his  elevation  there  can  only 
be  learned  from  other  documents.  The  next  thing  that 
we  are  told  is  that  Jacob  was  removing  to  Egypt  with 
his  entire  family  (xlvi.  6,  7) ;  here  again  we  must  look 
elsewhere  for  the  circumstances  by  which  this  was 
brought  about. 

J  is  supposed  to  have  traced  the  line  of  descent  from 
Adam  to  Noah,  and  from  Noah  to  Abraham,  but  only 
disconnected  fragments  remain  (pp.  47,  135  seq.) ;  also 
to  have  given  an  account  of  the  descendants  of  Noah's 
sons,  which  is  likewise  in  a  fragmentary  state  (pp.  134 
seq.).  His  account  of  Abraham  begins  abruptly  (pp.  169 
seq.,  175),  and  is  without  any  fitting  termination ;  in 
fact  he  does  not  record  the  death  of  any  of  the  patriarchs 
(p.  310).  E's  accoimt  of  Abraham  consists  merely  of  a 
few  disconnected  incidents  (pp.  160  seq.).  J  and  E  are 
inseparably  blended  in  ch.  xxvii.  The  nan-ative  is  in- 
capable of  division,  and  yet  is  indispensable  in  each 
document,  so  that  it  cannot  be  given  to  one  without 
creating  a  chasm  in  the  other  (pp.  328  sqq.).  The  par- 
tition of  chs.  xxix.  and  xxx.  between  J  and  E  leaves  both 
very  incomplete  (pp.  344  sqq.,  352).  And  in  the  life  of 
Joseph  every  passage  assigned  to  one  of  these  documents 
creates  a  break  in  the  other. 

There  are  also  numerous  cross-references  from  one 
document  to  the  contents  of  another,  showing  that  they 
have  been  improperly  sundered  (pp.  33  sqq.,  72  seq., 
175,  322,  331,  etc.).  In  other  cases  these  are  only 
evaded  by  splintering  closely  connected  passages  into 
bits  because  of  the  references  made  to  them  from  differ- 
ent documents  (pp.  169,  309,  405  sqq.). 

In  all  these  instances  of  a  lack  of  continuity  in  the 
documents  and  references  in  one  to  the  contents  of  an- 
other, the  critics  assume  that  II  is  at  fault.     The  missing 


558  coNcLusIo^f 

matter  must  have  been  in  the  document  originally,  but 
was  omitted  by  R  because  he  had  given  an  equivalent 
account  from  another  source,  which  he  thought  it  un- 
necessary to  duplicate.  This  assumption,  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served, is  simply  an  inference  from  the  hypothesis  which 
it  is  adduced  to  support.  There  is  nothing  to  confirm  it 
apart  from  the  prior  assumption  of  the  truth  of  that 
hypothesis,  which  is  the  very  thing  to  be  proved.  The 
hypothesis  requires  it ;  that  is  all. 

These  numerous  breaks  in  the  documents  are  created 
by  the  critical  partition.  Just  what  is  needed  to  fill  the 
gap  is  in  the  text  as  it  now  stands.  But  the  critics  insist 
that  the  lack  must  be  supplied,  not  by  these  passages 
which  are  here  before  us,  and  which  precisely  answer 
every  requirement,  but  by  some  hypothetical  passage 
which  may  once  have  existed,  but  of  which  there  is  no 
proof  whatever  except  that  the  hypothesis  cannot  be 
maintained  without  it.  These  auxiliary  assumptions 
have  to  be  made  so  frequently  that  nothing  but  the  clear- 
est independent  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  hypothesis 
could  enable  it  to  carry  them.  And  this  is  utterly  want- 
ing. As  it  is,  these  unfilled  chasms  are  just  so  many 
proofs  that  the  hypothesis  is  untenable. 

This  conclusion  is  yet  more  firmly  riveted  by  the  in- 
consistent conduct  which  the  divisive  critics  are  obliged 
to  impute  to  the  redactor.  While  omitting  in  turn  mat- 
ters of  the  greatest  consequence  from  each  of  the  docu- 
ments, he  is  supposed  at  other  times  scrupulously  to  re- 
tain even  the  minutest  portion  of  the  sources  which  he  is 
using,  though  it  leads  to  superfluous  repetitious  in  trivial 
things.  This  is  not  to  be  evaded  by  assuming  different 
redactors,  who  adopt  different  methods  in  their  compila- 
tion. The  redactor  who  combined  J  and  E,  at  the  very 
time  that  he  was  sacrificing  large  and  important  portions 
of  each  document  alternately,  is  supposed  to  have  in- 


CHASMS   IN   THE   DOCUMENTS  559 

corporated  clauses  or  sentences  from  tlie  omitted  sections 
in  the  text  of  the  other  document,  which  are  betrayed  as 
such  by  the  redundancy  thus  occasioned.^  And  the  re- 
dactor who  combined  P  with  JE,  and  at  times  was  par- 
ticular to  preserve  all  that  he  found  in  P,  even  when  it 
added  nothing  to  what  had  already  been  extracted  from 
J^  (pp.  83  sqq.,  175,  265),  at  other  times  did  not  hesitate 
to  throw  away  the  bulk  of  his  narrative  and  reduce  the 
document  to  incoherent  fragments.  And  each  of  these 
redactors  is  supposed  in  a  great  number  of  cases  to  have 
carefully  preserved  the  contents  of  his  sources,  notwith- 
standing their  discrepancies  and  contradictions,  while  at 
other  times,  without  any  reason  to  account  for  this  dif- 
ference of  treatment,  he  freely  modified  them  in  order  to 
bring  them  into  harmony  with  each  other.^  The  redac- 
tor is  made  the  scapegoat  of  the  hypothesis.  Every 
thing  that  does  not  square  with  the  hypothesis  is  attrib- 
uted to  him.  And  this  lays  upon  him  incompatible  de- 
mauds,  and  imputes  to  him  a  degree  of  inconsistency  iu- 
supposable  in  any  rational  man. 

•  Kuenen  (Hexateuch,  p.  1G4,  note  28)  saj's  :  "  The  scrupulous  con- 
servatism of  the  redaction  is  proclaimed  loudly  enough  by  the  presence 
of  so  many  doublets.  .  .  .  The  little  additions  to  E  and  J  in  Gen. 
xl.  sqq.  are  evidently  intended  to  smooth  down  the  inequalities  that 
must  necessarily  arise  when  fragments  now  of  one,  now  of  the  other 
narrative,  are  successively  taken  up." 

^  Kuenen  (Ibid.,  p.  320) :  "  R  scrupulously  inserts  even  the  minor 
fragments  of  P  in  the  places  that  seem  best  to  fit  them  when  the  more 
detailed  notices  of  the  older  documents  might  have  seemed  to  a  less 
zealous  disciple  to  have  rendered  them  superfluous." 

•*  Hence  Kuenen  (Hexateuch,  p.  255)  speaks  of  "the  mingled  rever- 
ence and  freedom,  so  strange  sometimes  to  our  ideas,  with  which  he 
treats  his  documents." 


560  CONCLUSION 


WHEN   AND   WHERE   PRODUCED 

In  undertaking  to  determine  the  date  and  origin  of 
the  supi3osititious  Pentateuchal  documents,  the  critics 
begin  by  denying  the  truth  of  the  patriarchal  history. 
Kuenen  tells  us :  ^  "  The  narratives  of  Genesis  are 
founded  upon  a  theory  of  the  origin  of  nations,  which 
the  historical  science  of  the  present  day  rejects  without 
the  slightest  hesitation.  The  Israelites  looked  upon  na- 
tions or  tribes  as  families  or  large  households.  The 
further  they  carried  their  thoughts  back,  the  smaller  to 
their  ideas  became  the  family,  until  at  last  they  came 
upon  the  father  of  the  tribe  or  of  the  whole  nation,  to 
whom  very  naturally  they  ascribed  the  same  qualities  as 
they  had  observed  in  the  descendants.  This  theory  of 
the  origin  of  nations  is  not  the  true  one.  Families  be- 
come tribes,  and  eventually  nations,  not  only,  nor  even 
chiefly,  by  multiplying,  but  also,  nay,  principally,  by 
combining  with  the  inhabitants  of  some  district,  by  the 
subjection  of  the  weaker  to  the  stronger,  by  the  gradual 
blending  together  of  sometimes  very  heterogeneous  ele- 
ments." So,  too,  Dillmann  :  ~  "  It  is  well  understood 
nowadays  that  all  these  narratives  respecting  tlie  patri- 
archs belong  not  to  strict  history  but  to  saga.  That  the 
proper  ancestor  of  no  one  people  on  earth  can  be  histor- 
ically pointed  out ;  that  nations  are  not  formed  after  the 
manner  of  a  family,  but  grow  together  from  all  sorts  of 
materials ;  that  the  division  into  twelve  tribes  of  all  the 
Hebraic  peoples  rests  not  on  natural  generation  and 
blood  relationship,  but  that  art  and  design,  geographical 
and  political  or  even  religious  reasons,  were  controlling 

'  Keligion  of  Israel,  vol.  i. ,  p.   110.     The  paragraph  cited  above  is 
slightly  abridged. 
'■*  Genesis,  p.  215. 


WHEN   AND   WHERE   PKODUCED  661 

in  it ;  that  the  personifications  of  peoples,  tribes,  regions, 
and  periods,  which  are  universally  recognized  in  the  rep- 
resentations of  Genesis  as  far  as  ch.  xi.,  do  not  cease  at 
once  with  ch.  xii.,  but  continue  further,  and  that  not 
merely  in  the  genealogies  of  peoples  which  still  follow, 
is  to  be  unconditionally  admitted." 

To  all  this  Delitzsch,'  while  admitting  what  is  said 
of  the  growth  of  other  nations,  very  properly  replies  : 
*'  The  people  destined  to  be  the  bearer  and  mediator  of 
revealed  religion  is,  as  is  emphasized  throughout  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  {e.g.,  Deut.  xxxii,  6),  no 
mere  formation  of  nature ;  and  we  can  conceive  that 
there  was  something  unique  in  the  very  origination  of 
this  people,  provided  of  course  that  we  acknowledge  a 
realm  of  grace  above  that  of  nature,  and  consequently  a 
realm  of  the  supernatural  control  of  God  above  that  of 
natural  law.  Besides,  the  migration  of  the  Terahids  is 
in  itself  more  than  simply  a  fact  of  family  history.  And 
a  shepherd  prince  like  Abraham,  w^ho  could  put  in  the 
field  hundreds  of  servants,  that  must  be  regarded  as  in- 
corporated with  his  family,  is  already  developing  into  a 
tribe  ;  at  least  several  prominent  tribes  among  the  South 
African  Bantu  people  have  arisen  in  this  way  from  a 
chief  and  his  adherents.  And  the  family  of  Jacob,  which 
emigrated  to  Egypt,  and  only  numbered  seventy  souls 
as  blood-related  kinsmen,  grew  into  a  nation,  not  merely 
of  itself,  but  by  the  reception  of  all  sorts  of  foreign  ma- 
terials." 

To  one  who  believes  that  God  designed  to  form  a  peo- 
ple for  himself  and  for  his  own  gracious  purposes,  there 
is  little  difficulty  in  believing  that  he  selected  Abraham 
to  be  the  head  of  a  chosen  race,  among  whom  tnie  relig- 
ion should  be  preserved  and  perpetuated  until  the  time 
should  arrive  for  its  diffusion  among  all  the  nations  of 

1  Genesis,  p.  248. 
36 


562  CONCLUSION 

the  earth.  Such  an  one  can  easily  credit  the  fact  that 
the  people  of  Israel  was  brought  into  being  in  a  manner 
different  from  other  nations,  and  better  suited  to  fit  them 
for  the  peculiar  task  that  was  to  be  committed  to  them. 
Accordingly  he  will  see  no  reason  to  discredit  the  histor- 
ical character  of  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs  as  recorded 
in  Genesis.  The  fact  that  the  filiation  of  nations  is  ex- 
hibited in  ch.  X.  under  the  form  of  a  genealogy  does  not 
justify  the  suspicion  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
whose  histories  are  related  in  detail,  are  the  names  not 
of  individual  men,  but  of  tribal  communities.  That  they 
were  the  heads  of  considerable  clans  appears  from  the 
narrative  itself,  p.  466.  The  immediate  object  to  Avhich 
attention  is  directed  at  present,  however,  is  not  the  truth 
of  the  Scriptural  declarations  on  this  subject,  but  the 
position  of  the  divisive  critics  and  the  process  by  which 
they  undertake  to  determine  the  time  and  place  in  which 
the  Pentateuchal  documents  were  produced. 

Apart  from  the  Avild  conceits,  which  have  actually 
found  advocates,  that  the  patriarchs  are  nature  myths, 
or  that  they  represent  tribal  deities,  the  common  concep- 
tion of  those  by  whom  the  divisive  hypothesis  has  been 
shaped  is  that  they  are  personifications  of  the  people  of 
Israel  in  the  earliest  periods  of  their  history,  or  of  sepa- 
rate clans  or  tribes  supposed  to  have  been  combined  in 
the  formation  of  that  people.  Thus  Kuenen  ^  says  :  "  Ja- 
cob-Israel, who  appears  in  Genesis  as  the  ancestor  of 
the  whole  people,  was  originally  the  personification  of 
the  tribes  which  ranged  themselves  round  Epliraim.  In 
the  stories  about  him  in  Gen.  xxvii.-l.,  Joseph,  the  father 
of  Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  is  the  chief  personage." 
"  The  several  sagas  were  probably  of  local  origin.  For 
example,  Isaac  belongs  originally  to  Beersheba,  and 
Jacob  to  Bethel."  "  Hebron  was  Abraham's  territorial 
1  Hexateuch,  pp.  239,  237,  231,  235. 


WHEN    AND    WHERE    PRODUCED  563 

cradle."  Both  he  and  Wellhausen  insist  that  "  Isaac,  not 
Abraham,  was  the  protagonist."  Abraham  was  the  latest 
creation  of  the  saga,  and  the  resemblance  of  his  life  to 
that  of  Isaac  is  accounted  for  by  "the  transference  to 
Abraham  of  sagas  concerning  Isaac."  Dillmann  ^  holds 
that  "  if  Jacob  can  be  understood  as  the  personal  con- 
centration of  the  twelve-tribe  peojile  of  Israel,  so  also 
Isaac  and  Abraham  as  designations  of  historical  ante- 
cedent stages  of  the  twelve-tribe  people  or  its  related  cir- 
cle. .  .  .  According  to  Genesis  they  are  at  the  least 
concentrations  of  certain  fragments  of  the  Hebrew  peo- 
ple out  of  which  Israel  was  gradually  formed."  "  In  the 
remainder  of  the  Abrahamic  immigration  after  the  sunder- 
ing of  the  Lot-people,  the  Ishmaelites,  and  the  Keturah- 
ites,  later  generations  recognized  that  portion  of  the  He- 
brews which  preserved  the  Abrahamic  character  in  the 
greatest  purity  and  were  their  proper  ancestors.  .  .  . 
Jacob-Israel  is  along  with  Abraham  the  proper  father  of 
the  people  of  Israel,  the  representative  of  a  new  Hebrew 
immigration  from  Mesopotamia,  out  of  which,  together 
with  the  Isaac-people,  Israel  was  formed.  Quite  a  difier- 
ent  part  of  Canaan  is  the  scene  of  his  actions,  viz.,  the 
middle  (Bethel,  Shechem)  and  eastern  portion  of  the  land 
(Mahanaim,  Peuiel,  Succoth)." 

According  to  Stade  '~  there  is  no  basis  of  truth  Avhat- 
ever  in  the  narratives  of  Genesis.  He  says  :  "  We  main- 
tain that  the  people  of  Israel  possess  no  sort  of  certain 
and  intelligible  historical  recollections  about  the  events 
prior  to  the  time  of  their  settlement  in  the  land  west  of 
the  Jordan.  All  that  subsequently  existed  of  recollec- 
tions about  that  earlier  time  is  concentrated  in  the  two 
names,  Moses  and  Sinai.  But  what  is  narrated  of  these 
names  is  simply  concluded  back  from  the  relations  of  the 

'  Genesis,  pp.  215,  216,  311. 

-  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  pp.  55,  128,  129,  130. 


564  CONCLUSION 

present ;  it  is  nothing  but  saga  which  takes  its  bearings 
from  and  is  reconstructed  by  these  latter."  "  A  pre- 
Egyptian  abode  of  Israelitish  families  in  the  laud  west  of 
the  Jordan  is  not  to  be  spoken  of.  .  .  ,  This  concep- 
tion cannot  be  honestly  held  in  view  of  discovered  facts," 
as  he  conceives  them.  "  The  people  of  Israel  never 
resided  in  Egypt.  ...  If  any  Hebraic  clan  ever 
resided  there,  no  one  knows  its  name.  .  .  .  The  in- 
vestigations respecting  the  Pharaohs,  under  whom  Israel 
migrated  into  and  out  of  Egypt,  are  useless  trifling  with 
numbers  and  names."  "We  have  not  the  least  knowl- 
edge of  the  pre-Mosaic  worship  of  God  in  Israel ;  not  a 
single  tradition  concerning  it  is  in  existence." 

Kuenen  ^  is  not  so  utterly  destructive.  He  finds  the 
following  basis  of  fact  in  Genesis :  "  There  occurred  a 
Semitic  migration,  which  issued  from  Arrapachitis  (Ar- 
pachshad,  Ur  Casdim),  and  moved  on  in  a  southwesterly 
direction.  The  countries  to  the  south  and  east  of 
Canaan  were  gradually  occupied  by  these  intruders,  the 
former  inhabitants  being  either  expelled  or  subjugated  ; 
Ammon,  Moab,  Ishmael,  and  Edom  became  the  ruling 
nations  in  those  districts.  In  Canaan  the  situation  was 
different.  The  tribes  which — at  first  closely  connected 
with  the  Edomites,  but  afterward  separated  from  them — 
had  turned  their  steps  toward  Canaan,  did  not  find  them- 
selves strong  enough  either  to  drive  out,  or  to  exact 
tribute  from,  the  original  inhabitants  ;  they  continued 
their  wandering  life  among  them,  and  lived  upon  the 
whole  at  peace  with  them.  But  a  real  settlement  was 
still  their  aim.  When,  therefore,  they  had  become  more 
numerous  and  powerful  through  the  arrival  of  a  number 
of  kindi-ed  settlers  from  Mesopotamia — represented  in 
tradition  l)y  the  army  with  which  Jacob  returns  to 
Canaan — they  resumed  their  march  in  the  same  south- 
'  Religion  of  Israel,  vol.  i.,  pp.  114,  115. 


WHEN   AND   WHERE   PRODUCED  565 

■westerly  direction,  until  at  length  tliey  took  possession 
of  fixed  habitations  in  the  land  of  Goshen  on  the  borders 
of  Egypt.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  single  tribe  had 
preceded  them  thither  and  that  they  undertook  the  jour- 
ney to  Goshen  at  the  solicitation  of  that  forerunner ; 
this  would  then  be  the  kernel  of  the  narratives  relating 
to  Joseph  and  his  exertions  in  favor  of  his  brethren."  ^ 

Dillmann^  contends  for  a  still  larger  basis  of  truth. 
In  fact  he  goes  so  far  that  it  is  surprising  that  he  does 
not  go  farther,  and  admit  with  Delitzsch  that  the  history 
is  at  least  substantially  rehable  throughout.  He  says: 
"Is  there  any  reason  to  refuse  to  these  patriarchal  sagas 
of  Israel  all  historical  content,  so  much  so  that  it  has 
even  been  doubted  or  denied  that  their  ancestors  ever 
were  in  Canaan,  and  they  have  even  been  declared  to  be 

'  This  mode  of  manufacturing  history  by  substituting  fanciful  con- 
jectures for  facts,  in  which  the  critics  so  freely  indulge  in  the  patri- 
archal, Mosaic,  and  even  later  periods,  is  well  characterized  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage  from  an  unpublished  lecture  of  my  distinguished  prede- 
cessor. Dr.  Addison  Alexander  : 

"  Letus  suppose  that  a  future  critic  of  our  revolutionary  history — 
and  if  a  German  so  much  the  better— should  insist  upon  the  improba- 
bility that  such  a  revolution  could  have  been  occasioned  by  causes  so 
trilling  as  the  Stamp  Act  or  the  tax  on  tea,  and  should  therefore  repre- 
sent them  as  symbolical  myths  occasioned  by  the  rivalry  of  England 
and  America  at  a  late  period  in  the  tea  trade  with  China  and  by  the 
disputes  respecting  an  international  copyright.  Such  a  writer  would, 
of  course,  find  no  difficulty  in  going  further  and  regarding  Washington 
as  an  unnatural  and  impossible  character,  yet  highly  striking  and  ap- 
propriate as  a  genuine  type  of  patriotic  and  republican  virtues.  It  is 
plain  that  this  ingenious  child's  play  could  be  carried  on  ad  infinitum  ; 
and  this  very  facility  deprives  it  of  all  force  as  proof  that  the  imagi- 
nary process  was  a  real  one,  or  that  the  stream  of  history  flows  backward 
from  its  estuary  to  its  source.  In  spite  of  all  sophistical  refinements 
the  common  sense  of  mankind  will  still  cleave  to  the  lesson  taught  by 
all  analogy,  that  primitive  history  must  deal  with  individualities,  and 
that  philosophical  myths  can  only  be  obtained  from  them  by  general- 
izing combination," 

•■*  Genesis,  pp.  215,  216. 


566  CONCLUSION 

*  tendency '  fictions  of  the  period  of  the  kings  ?  .  .  . 
Doiibtless  the  reflection  of  later  persons,  times,  and  rela- 
tions is  thrown  back  on  the  saga  forms  of  antiquity,  and 
the  latter  become  involuntarily  types  of  the  former,  but 
there  must  first  be  a  background  for  that  which  is  more 
recent  to  mirror  itself  upon.  .  .  .  It  is  not  impossi- 
ble even  that  obscure  reminiscences  of  actual  historical 
persons  may  have  attached  themselves  to  them,  though 
naturally  no  proof  of  it  can  be  adduced,  for  extra- 
biblical  testimonies  are  wanting.  ...  A  main  con- 
sideration here  is  that  the  religion  founded  by  Moses 
cannot  be  historically  explained  without  the  previous 
stage  of  a  purer  faith  respecting  God  (at  least  as  com- 
pared with  ordinary  heathenism),  such  as  according  to 
Genesis  was  possessed  by  the  patriarchs.  .  .  .  And 
such  a  higher  religious  culture  almost  necessarily  pre- 
supposes personal  mediators  or  bearers.  As  the  forma- 
tion of  states  only  takes  place  through  leading  spirits  or 
heroes,  so  too  the  stadia  of  the  development  of  religion 
are  linked  to  prominent  persons.  The  patriarchal  sagas 
in  Genesis  represent  Abraham  as  the  head  of  a  purer 
faith  respecting  God  in  the  midst  of  heathen  darkness, 
as  a  man  of  a  mind  eminently  disposed  toward  God  and 
faith,  who  was  accustomed  to  hear  and  obey  the  voice 
and  instruction  of  God  in  all  the  junctures  and  events  of 
his  life,  who  made  advances  in  the  knoAvledge  of  the 
being  and  will  of  God,  and  who  grounded  his  family  and 
his  neighborhood  in  this  higher  knowledge.  We  must 
almost  presuppose  the  existence  of  one  or  more  such 
men,  whether  they  were  called  Abraham  or  something 
else,  if  it  be  correct  that  Moses  could  link  on  to  the  God 
of  his  fathers.  To  be  sure,  if  one  denies,  as  many  now 
do,  the  work  of  Moses  likewise,  and  makes  the  herds- 
man Amos  or  Elijah  the  opponent  of  Baal  the  founder 
of  the  higher  God- consciousness  of  Israel,  that  linking  is 


WHEN   AND   WHERE   PIIODUCED  567 

no  longer  needed.  The  whole  patriarchal  saga  must  dis- 
solve in  fog  and  mist  on  this  way  of  regarding  things.'' 

Stade  and  Kuenen  fix  the  age  of  the  patriarchal  saga 
on  the  basis  of  their  revolutionary  conception  of  the  his- 
tory of  Israel.  Thus  Stade  '  says :  "  Abraham  as  the 
father  of  Isaac  and  grandfather  of  Jacob  presupposes  the 
government  of  Judali  over  all  Israel,  and  the  complete 
amalgamation  of  the  Edomite  clan  Caleb  with  Judah ; 
the  Jacob-Joseph  saga  presupposes  the  divided  king- 
dom." And  Kuenen  :  ~  "  The  sagas  about  the  patri- 
archs .  .  .  presuppose  the  unity  of  the  people 
(which  only  came  into  existence  with  and  by  means  of 
the  monarchy)  as  a  long-accomplished  fact  which  had 
come  to  dominate  the  whole  conception  of  the  past  com- 
pletely." "  The  welding  process  {i.e.,  of  the  sagas  relat- 
ing to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob)  cannot  have  begun  till 
the  national  unity  was  established ;  and  it  must  have 
reached  its  ultimate  completeness  when  the  stories  out 
of  which  Gen,  xii.  sqq.  is  worked  up  and  compiled  were 
written."  The  conclusion  is  hence  drawn  that  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  documents  must  be  considerably  later  than  the 
time  of  David,  or  even  of  Rehoboam.  But  it  rests  upon 
a  theory  of  the  history  of  Israel,  which  is  in  the  face  of 
the  clearest  Scriptural  statements,  and  has  no  real  basis 
in  the  few  passages  which  have  been  wrested  to  its  sup- 
port. 

A  more  common  argument  of  date  is  drawn  from  the 
localities  mentioned  in  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs,  as 
Bethel,  Shechem,  Beersheba,  Hebron,  etc.  Later  super- 
stition consecrated  these  places,  where  divine  communi- 
cations were  made  to  the  ]:>atriarchs,  or  where  they  erected 
altars  and  worshipped  God;  and  idolatrous  sanctuaries 
were  established  there.  By  a  complete  inversion  of  the 
real  facts  of  the  case  it  is  alleged  that  the  narratives  of  reve- 
1  Geschichte,  p,  138.  '  Hexateuch,  pp.  236,  837, 


i368  coN^CLUSioisr 

lations  granted  to  the  patriarchs  and  of  worship  offered  by 
them  are  not  records  of  real  facts,  but  are  stories  which 
grew  up  at  these  sanctuaries  to  enhance  their  credit. 
The  authors  of  these  narratives  as  they  appear  in  Gene- 
sis, it  is  ckiimed,  intended  thereby  to  give  sanction  to 
these  sanctuaries  and  express  their  approval  of  them. 
The  stern  condemnation  of  the  worship  at  these  sanctu- 
aries by  the  prophets  Hosea  and  Amos  indicates,  it  is 
said,  a  change  of  mind  toward  them  on  the  part  of  the 
best  people  of  that  period.  This  is  thought  to  fix  the 
limit,  below  which  narratives  commendatory  of  these 
sanctuaries  could  not  have  been  written.  It  is  hence 
inferred  that  J  and  E,  to  which  the  great  body  of  the 
patriarchal  narratives  are  referred,  must  have  been 
written  shortly  before  the  time  of  Hosea  and  Amos. 

Two  questions  still  remain  to  divide  the  critics  in  re- 
spect to  these  documents.  One  is  as  to  their  relative 
age ;  the  other,  the  part  of  the  country  in  which  they 
were  produced.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  argued  by  Well- 
hausen  and  Kuenen  that  J  must  be  older  than  E,  since 
it  adheres  more  closely  to  primitive  popular  beliefs,  as 
shown  in  its  crude  anthropomorphic  representations  of 
the  Deity.  To  which  Dillmann  replies  that  like  an- 
thropomorphisms are  found  in  the  prophets  and  iu  other 
Avritini>;s  of  the.  Old  Testament  alonsj  with  the  most  ex- 
alted  ideas  of  God,  and  he  adduces  what  he  considers 
abundant  proofs  that  the  author  of  J  was  in  possession 
of  E,  and  made  use  of  it  in  preparing  his  own  liistor}'. 

Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  maintain  that  both  J  and  E 
belonged  to  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel  because  of 
the  prominence  given  to  Joseph,  the  connection  of  Jacob 
with  Bethel  and  Shechem,  Mahanaim  and  Penuel,  as  well 
as  Beersheba,  which  was  a  sanctuary  reverenced  in  north- 
ern Israel,  as  appears  from  Amos  v.  5 ;  viii.  14.  Dillmann 
concedes  that  E  was  a  North-IsraeUte,  but  claims  that  J 


WHEN   AND    WHERE  PRODUCED  569 

belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Judab,  inasmuch  as  he 
speaks  of  Hebron  as  the  abode  of  Abraham  (xiii.  18 ; 
xviii.  1)  and  of  Jacob  (xxxvii.  IJ:),  and  gives  prominence 
to  Judah  in  the  history  of  Joseph  (xxxvii.  26  sqq. ;  xliii. 
3  sqq. ;  xliv.  16  sqq. ;  xlvi.  28),  as  well  as  in  ch.  xxxviii. 
But  J  also  links  Abraham  with  Bethel  and  Shechem  (xii. 
6,  8 ;  xiii.  3,  4),  and  dwells  as  largely  as  E  upon  the  life 
and  dignity  of  Joseph  ;  and  his  account  of  Judah  in  chs. 
xxxvii.,  xxxviii.  is  not  of  the  most  creditable  sort.  The 
divergence  of  the  critics  as  well  as  the  incompatibility  of 
the  facts  oi  the  narratives  with  either  theory  show  that 
these  narratives  have  not  been  warped  by  tribal  partiali- 
ties or  jealousies  ;  so  that  the  argument  for  the  residence 
of  their  authors  in  either  one  of  the  kingdoms  is  abortive. 
And  even  the  attempt  of  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  to 
patch  up  their  theory  by  the  assumption  of  a  Judsean 
edition  of  both  J  and  E  only  complicates  their  scheme 
without  improving  it. 

One  more  alleged  evidence  of  the  date  of  the  docu- 
ments is  sought  in  allusions  to  late  historical  events 
which,  it  is  claimed,  are  found  in  them,  and  in  the  style 
of  religious  thouglit  and  teaching  by  which  they  are  char- 
acterized. Thus  in  Noah's  prediction  (ix.  25-27)  of  the 
subjugation  of  Canaan  by  Shem,  it  is  said  that  the  reign 
of  Solomon  is  presupposed ;  in  Isaac's  blessing  (xxvii. 
29,  39  seq.),  David's  victories  over  the  Edomites,  their 
rebellion  under  Solomon,  and  revolt  against  Jehoram  the 
son  of  Jehoshaphat ;  in  the  covenant  of  Jacob  and  Laban 
(xxxi.  44  sqq.),  the  wars  of  the  Aramaeans  and  Israelites 
for  the  possession  of  the  trans-Jordanic  district ;  in  the 
promise  of  kings  to  spring  from  Abraham  (xvii.  16)  and 
Jacob  (xxxv.  11),  and  the  blessing  upon  Judah  (xlix.  8- 
10),  the  reign  of  David  is  presupposed  ;  and  in  xxxvi.  31 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  in  Israel.  The  falsity 
of  the  inference  deduced  from  this  last  passage  is  shown 


570  CONCLUSION 

at  length  iu  the  discussion  of  it  in  the  former  part  of  this 
volume,  pp.  425  sqq.  The  covenant  of  Jacob  and  Laban 
is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time. 
The  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  in  Genesis  does  not 
warrant  the  assumption  that  they  were  written  after  the 
event,  except  to  him  who  has  no  belief  in  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  God  or  in  the  possibility  of  his  making  disclos- 
ures of  the  future. 

The  correspondence  between  the  religious  ideas  which 
find  expression  in  various  passages  of  Genesis  and  the 
teachings  of  the  prophets  is  urged  in  proof  that  the  docu- 
ments J  and  E  must  belong  to  the  period  of  the  prophets. 
The  true  course  of  religious  development  in  Israel  must, 
however,  be  gathered  from  a  full  and  careful  induction 
of  all  the  facts  bearing  upon  the  subject.  The  critics  re- 
verse the  proper  order  of  scientific  investigation  when 
they  frame  their  own  theory  in  advance  on  naturalistic 
presuppositions,  and  then  attempt  to  force  the  facts  into 
agreement  with  it.  They  determine  what  degree  of  en- 
lightenment can  upon  their  theory  be  attributed  to  a  given 
period,  and  then  systematically  exclude  from  that  period 
everj'thing  that  does  not  fit  into  their  theory.  The 
amount  and  character  of  the  religious  teaching  to  be 
found  in  the  writings  of  Moses  is  the  only  reliable  source 
from  which  it  can  be  ascertained  what  his  teachings  really 
were.  The  genuineness  of  his  writings  must  be  inde- 
pendently investigated  in  the  first  instance  ;  and  then  we 
shall  be  in  a  position  to  inquire  with  some  confidence 
into  the  religion  of  Moses.  But  to  determine  magisteri- 
ally the  limits  of  his  teaching,  and  then  to  declare  that 
the  writings  attributed  to  him  cannot  be  genuine,  and 
must  be  referred  to  an  age  long  posterior  to  that  in  which 
he  lived,  because  they  transcend  these  arbitrarily  assumed 
limitations,  is  not  a  legitimate  method  of  procedure. 


THE   END    OF   THE   DISCUSSION  571 


SUMMARY   OF   THE   ARGUMENT 

The  argument  is  now  finished.  May  it  not  be  truly 
said  that  the  demonstration  is  complete  ?  The  grounds, 
upon  which  the  existence  of  documents  in  Genesis  is 
rested,  have  been  severally  examined  and  shown  to  be 
invalid.  The  alleged  repetitions  and  discrepancies  van- 
ish upon  examination,  being  created  by  the  critics  them- 
selves, and  due  either  to  misinterpretation  or  the  identi- 
fication of  distinct  events.  The  divine  names  in  repeated 
instances  fail  to  correspond  with  the  requirements  of  the 
divisive  hypothesis,  which  is  not  needed  to  explain  their 
alternation,  since  this  is  most  satisfactorily  accounted  for 
from  their  own  proper  signification  and  general  biblical 
usage  ;  moreover,  it  does  not  render,  and  does  not  even 
pretend  to  render,  a  rational  account  of  their  employ- 
ment and  distribution.  The  alleged  diversity  of  diction, 
style,  and  conception  is  either  altogether  factitious  or  is 
due  to  difterences  in  the  subject  matter  and  not  to  a  di- 
versity of  writers.  The  continuity  and  self- consistency 
of  Genesis,  contrasted  with  the  fragmentary  character 
and  mutual  inconsistencies  of  the  documents,  prove  that 
Genesis  is  the  original,  of  which  the  so-called  documents 
are  but  severed  parts.  The  role  attributed  to  the  re- 
dactor is  an  impossible  one,  and  proves  him  to  be  an  un- 
real personage.  And  the  arguments  for  the  late  date  of 
the  documents  and  for  their  origin  in  one  or  other  of  the 
divided  kingdoms  are  built  upon  perversions  of  the  his- 
tory or  upon  unproved  assumptions.  What  more  is 
needed  to  demonstrate  the  utter  futility  of  the  claim  that 
such  documents  ever  existed? 

In  the  legislative  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  the  ques- 
tion turns  no  longer  upon  literary  criteria,  but  upon  an 
entirely  diiferent  principle  :  Are  the  institutions  and  en- 


572  CONCLUSION 

actments  of  the  Pentateuch  the  growth  of  ages  or  the 
product  of  one  age  and  of  a  single  mind  ?  It  is  here 
that  the  battle  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  must  be  fought. 
Meanwhile,  the  investigations  thus  far  conducted  justify 
at  least  a  negative  conclusion.  The  so-called  anach- 
ronisms of  the  Book  of  Genesis  have  been  examined, 
and  nothing  has  been  found  to  militate  against  its  being 
the  work  of  Moses,  It  is  plainly  designed  to  be  intro- 
ductory to  the  law.  And  if  that  law  was  given  by  Moses, 
as  has  always  been  believed,  and  as  the  Scriptures  abun- 
dantly declare,  then  Genesis,  too,  was  his  work. 


INDEX 

OF  THE  CRITERIA  OF  THE  DIFFEREXT   DOCUMENTS 


(The  numbers  refer  to  the  pages  on  which  they  are  discussed  ;  numbers  enclosed  in 
parentheses  to  numbers  appearing  on  the  page.) 


I.  The  Divine  Names 


El,  404,  497,  535 

El-Elohe-Israel,  382 

Elohim,  6,  41,  51,  64,  89,  151 
sqq.,  221,  258,  265,  276,  284, 
295,  310,  331,  340,  350,  369, 
380,  404,  435,  460,  467,  468, 
482,  491,  497,  518,  538  sqq. 

El  Shaddai,  God  Almighty,  221, 
283  (6),  332,  482,  518 


Jehovah,  31,  41,  51,  64,  89,  144, 
151  sqq.,  181,  259,  276,  284, 
303,  320,  326,  331,  340,  350, 
369,  380,  434,  455,  460,  525, 
538  sqq. 


Shaddai,  Almighty,  525 


II.   Style,  Conception,  and  the  Relation  of  Passages 


Age,   statements  of,  P,  98  (2), 

178  (5) 
Altar  and  sacrifice,  J,  116  (1), 

163  (4) 
Angel,  J,  215  (1) 
Angel  calling  out  of  heaven,  E, 

287  (4) 
Anthropomorphisms,  J,  31  sqq. 
Anthropopathies,  J,  63  (11) 

Back    reference,     E,    342    (2), 

370  (1) 
Back  reference,  J,  241  (2),  381  (1) 
Back  reference,  P,  50  (1),  99  (5), 

231  (1).  269,  297  (13),  311  (7), 

518  (3),  526  (1) 
Beauty  of  description,  J,  240  (1) 


Call  and  answer,  E,  286  (3) 
Call,  the  divine,  J,  181  (1) 
Clean    and    unclean    beasts,    J, 

116  (1) 
Conception,  554 

Covenant  and  its  sign,  P,  100  (6) 
Covenant,  similarity  of,  P,  333  (4) 
Cross  reference,  J,  193  (1) 

Dangerous  to  see  God,  J,  215  (2) 
Detailed  enumeration,  P,  102(10) 
Diction,  548  sqq. 
Diffuseness,  P,  101  (7),  269,  402 
Discrepancies,  532  sqq. 
Disjunctive  question,  J,  245  (31) 

Etymology,  J,  145  (8),  216  (4) 


574 


INDEX 


First-born  mentioned,  P,  313  (4) 
Formality,  P,  50  (2),  296  (2) 
Formula,   concluding  (of  gene- 
alogies), P,  141  (2) 
Formulae,   constantly  recurring, 
P,  101  (7) 

Human  feelings  attributed  to 
God,  J,  G3  (11) 

Image  of  God,  P,  102  (9) 

Jehovah  comes  down  from 
heaven,  J,  145  (2) 

Law  woven  in,  P,  99  (5) 

Measurements,  P,  99  (4) 

Night  vision,  E,  286  (2) 

No  sacrifice  till  Moses,  P,  117, 163 

Promise  of  blessing  to  all  na- 
tions, J,  163  (3),  243  (25) 

Promise  of  nations,  kings,  and 
princes,  P,  232  (2) 

Reckoning  by  years  of  life,  P, 

98  (2) 
Redundancy  of  style,  P,  233  (5) 
References  expressed  or  implied 
from  one  document  to  an- 
other : 
From  E  to  J,  160  seq.,  255  seq. , 
263,  322  sqq.,  337  seq.,  357, 


376,  385,  405,464  seq.,  468, 
506  (2),  511,  529 

From  E  to  P,  406 

From  J  to  E,  159, 274,  318,  325, 
327,  356,  373,  375,  450,  459 
seq.,  473  seq.,  478 

From  J  to  P,  15,  33  sqq.,  72 
seq.,  77,  134,  169  seq.,  175, 
209  sqq.,  241  (2),  250,  299,  527 

From  P  to  JE,  35  seq.,  78,  82, 
158  sqq.,  171  seq.,  217  sqq., 
246  seq.,  249,  298,  309,  316, 
322,  330  seq.,  335  seq.,  363, 
383,  386  seq.,  406  seq.,  493, 
513  seq.,  527 
Repetitious,  532  sqq. 

Sinfulness  of  men,  inherent,  J, 

117  (2) 
Style,  548  sqq. 

Time,   exact   statements  of,   P, 

98  (3),  213  (1),  232  (3) 
Tithe,  E,  342  (5) 

Unadorned    character    of    the 

narrative,  P,  332  (1) 
Unfavorable    representation,    J, 

216  (3) 

Verbosity,  141  (3) 

Windows  of  heaven,  P,  101  (8) 
Worship,  J,  181  (2) 


III.  Characteristic  Words  and  Phrases 

(Niphal,  Hiphil,  Hithpael,  and  future  forms  of  verbs  are  arranged  under  their  first 
radical  letter.  Nouns  preceded  by  the  article  or  an  inseparable  preposition  are 
arranged  in  accordance  with  the  initial  letter  of  the  noun.) 


D'-Sn  J,  61  (4) 
n^"l:<  J,  341  (4) 
\:hS5  J,  241  (4) 


"h'^Hi  J,  217  (12) 

d^^T»3  n^S?  P,  161,  170,  204 

TnSD  P,  402  (4) 


INDEX 


675 


nWii  P,  233  (7) 

©■•Sn  J,  484  (6) 

T"'^\'  "^r^^  'O'^ii'T}  E,  484  (6) 

iriilJi?'!    iD"'S  (of  beasts)  J,  117 

(3)  " 
1\i<  E,  333  (1) 

bDS  J,  485  (12) 

nbDS  p,  112  (21) 

bi5  (for  n'^N)  J,  243  (23) 
nbi5  J,  326  (8) 

ins  D"^n'bs5  e,  271  (i) 
iab-bi?  J,  118  (5) 

nT2i?  E,  259  (1) 
nD^S  E,  253  (12) 

"iaba  -1)25?  J,  306  (17) 

bs  or  b  TQS  E,  262  (5) 

rnp^^  J,  483  (3) 

"ipS  P,  204 

T'/Q^-bi?  qcs:^;  ?,  310  (5) 

qS  J,  243  (19) 

pBi?nn  J,  489 
npi?  n^ijs  J,  40  (6) 

''B-^Sn  P,  330  (5) 

n^nnrD'isi;  J,  298 

3?iri  V"^^  E,  252  (2) 

1?:3  f  ns  P,  177  (4) 

^^:£b  y-15?  E,  253  (15) 

mrS  (of  a  concubine)  P,  214  (3) 

b  nffiSS  J,  353  (1) 

a  (distributive)  P,  116  (28) 
D^'a^n  Sa  J,  245  (32) 
HDNia  J,  143  (2) 
bb;\3  J,  185  (6) 

b^'inn  p,  4,  5 
n^na  p,  403  (9) 


i?"^3n  (to  Egypt)  E,  451  (3) 
■^Zl  J,  486  (22) 

^nysrD  ^n  r,  288  (i) 
nnbn  ir^a  j,  484  (7) 

ni32  P,  313  (4) 

rn^D2  J,  250  (1) 
inbnb,  ■^rbs  j,  242  (i4) 
^:3>D3n  niis  j,  299 
nD.r'ja  p,  235  (12) 

n^ny?  J,  118  (6) ;  E,  276  (3) 
■la  E,  485  (12) 
Sn3  P,  29  (1) 

r\^'-^  ^ina  J,  326  (4) 

tfnann  r,  289  (5) 

a  1\-^2Z  J,  181  (5) 
nb^5  (of  age)  E,  355  (2) 

y^a  p,  110  (18) 

Da  ...  na  J,  503  (lO) 

i5in  Da  J,  137,  292  (3) 
tjna  E,  272  (5) 

pa^  J,  403  (1) 

iab-bs  (a)  la"!  j,  306  (i7) 
''.rTsa  na"!  j,  529  (2) 
nbsn  D^ia'ia  j,  462  (5) 
na'i  E,  519  (0) 
nro'^  p,  4 

Dnhhb  P,  236  (19) 

D'^nbi^n-ns  tjbnnn  p,  51  (8) 

nsn  (adv.)  E,  276  (5) 

«3  nin  J,  185  (4) 

"'Ssn  E,  334  (3) 

iDi5  D^n"bs  nnnn  e,  530  (4) 

)^  (ending)  J,  243  (22) 


576 


INDEX 


D-^PlpT  J,  370  (2) 

nOT  E,  484  (11) 

nDT  (of  God)  P,  270  (1) 

nnp5^  nDT  p,  103  (12) 

ins  iy-lT  P,  498  (2) 
as^-irii^  DD?"1T  P,  109  (17) 

prn  E,  506  (3) 

n^n  (wild  beast)  P,  113  (22) 

n^nn  p,  120  (12) 
(2?nT)  n^rij,  120(12) 
■f  "isn  ni^n  p,  4 
n-ii^n  n:^n  j,  30  (2) 

Dibn  E,  260  (4) 

■ji^n  J,  119  (9) 
bnn  J,  61  (2) 
nbbn  j,  241  (8) 
tran  e,  273  (8) 
riias5i  Tpn  j,  305  (6) 
n^n  J,  381  (5) 
nnn  j,  245  (30) 
rp^;^n  nnn  e,  491  (2) 
pirn  p,  402  (3) 

nsnia  nab  j,  306  (i3) 

ni'J  (physical)  J,  61  (5) 

nni:  e,  273  (9) 

P_-0  E,  492  (3) 

nnu  J,  242  (13) 
nnm  e,  334  (2) 

y*!^  (euphemism)  J,  306  (14) 

y^inn  j,  489 

n^^  J,  509  (9) 

nan  (nn^)  j,  456  (6) 

Tn^i  E,  287  (6) 


b  i'^p'^n  J,  185  (2) 

niDin  E,  276  (7) 

lb;  (beget)  J,  111(20),  133 

l)"}  E.  272  (6),  484  (4) 

b  lb;*  J,  133 

T'bin  P,  111  (20),  234  (10) 
p'O^n  J,  194  (2) 

^^^  ^3©  i^;i  p,  311  (6) 

fl^D-in  J,  40  (8) 
ni^X  )T  R,  289  (3) 
npSJ^'  E,  450  (1) 

nsJTa  ns^i  nsn  ns^  e,  355 

(3) 

iDni  ^X2'i  P,  498  (7) 

r^^^n  (r;^;')  j,  503  (7) 
ns^i  J,  29  (1) 

nS."^  J,  62  (6) 
D'lp''  J,  119  (10) 

T^nin,  "in;  (to  Egypt)  j,  451  (3) 
n^in  (inf.  of  in;^)  e,  498  (3) 
nyic-ns*  t^^  j,  306  (i9) 
bsiniij;^  j,  450  (i) 

©'['(with  suf.)  J,  306(11) 
a©;  P,  192  (3) 

"ins  J,  485  (14) 

©as  p,  4 

niD  (local)  E,  287  (5) 
•jS-by  13  J,  243  (18) 

nm-bs  p,  103  (11) 
y^ir}  iiia-bs  j,  243  (25) 
nbs  J,  333  (2) 
inn-ba  p,  118  (7) 

IDT-bS  P,  235  (14) 

in-ba  J,  118  (7) 

ni3>  n?ffi  liiS'i-bs  P,  403  (11) 


INDEX 


577 


bsbs  E,  506  (2),  530  (2) 

nrisn  ninsir^-b3  j,  i8i  (4) 

n:b3  E,  484  (8j 

r:m'}  Jib  -521,403(5) 

T^t'J  IS  P,  105  (14) 

n^-12  nns  j,  107  (I6),  376  (2) 
b?inn  TiJssn  nniD:i  p,  236 

(20) 
D'^GS  nshS  J,  451  (2) 

b  a«  J,  118  (4) 

nn^  ibd;^  sb  j,  217  (ii) 
nnb  E,  260  (2) 

n-T  ni2b  J,  243  (17) 

npb  p,  176  (1) 
■jiffib  p,  145  (1) 

nK^  itn'a  p,  116  (27) 

Ti5^  J,  462  (3) 
bDX^  J,  112  (21) 
■jX'Q  J,  519  (2) 
nS'a  P,  269  (1) 
D'lnS^  P,  234  (8) 

rn)2ri^nn  j,  485  (I8) 
n^toy  ns5T-n^  j,  iss  (7) 
nD7-b3  DDb  biian  P,  402  (5) 
m^  J,  110  (18) 
n^"an  ni^  e,  252  (6) 
nnri  J,  111  (19) 
biaan  I'D  J,  120  (13) 

V^  P,  114  (23) 

nbsDia  p,  310  (3) 

tj^b)?  J,  215  (1) 
•jib's  J,  483  (2) 
D'lpb  E,  371  (10) 
l^yCTQb  P,  194 
37 


KiSO^  J,  483  (1) 
12:^13  J,  485  (16) 
NSpsn  J,  507  (2) 
■jn  N2T3  J,  62  (10) 

nilp'a  p,  4, 5 

nppl3  P,  234  (9) 

niansn  nip's  j,  509  (8) 

"Ip^r?  ^p'?  J,  509  (8) 

■jiisin  n;ps  J,  509  (S) 
nniDTp^  E,  354  (1) 

"I^TD^  E,  484  (7) 

Dninsc'ob  p,  142  (4) 
nn^nhstc^b  p,  104  (i3) 

i{p  J,  185  (3) 

rnni  Di?:  11, 289  (2) 
u^an  {p2^)  J,  241  (5) 

X^nD  E,  252  (5) 

nSp  E,  252  (2),  273  (3) 

^531  I''?  E,  377  (10) 

-liSn  (1D3)  J,  456  (4) 

yp3  E,  252  (1) ;  J,  498  (1) 

Qin^ysS  J,  503  (5) 

n?D  J,  484  (4),  see  272  (6) 

iins?-)2-b?  bsp  J,  502  (1) 

©23  P,  177  (3) 
b?  n^3  J,  341  (2) 
■ji^l??  J,  263  (6) 
step  P,  192  (2) 
i?^te3  P,  235  (11) 
n^12  inp  P,  107  (16) 

DID  J,  507  (4) 

n^^xn  -iny  j,  4o  (3) 
mn^  -iny  j,  305  (2) 


578 


INDEX 


5T13?  J,  243  (24) 
"]Sr)  n?  E,  334  (4) 

in  Tj-iiy  J.  502  (4) 

nbiy  (compouuds  of)  P,  285  (17) 

IDy  J,  4^.4  (8) 

n^:s-'r:^  L,  2 -.3  (14) 

"i^nS-by  E,  530  (5) 

nn^-b:?  e,  253  (ii) 

^71?  l?"b?  J,  530  (6) 

n^nstn  ■':s-br  J,  ei  (3) 
3s:^nri  j,  62  (8) 
■jin^y  J,  30  (7) 

D3?y  itself -seme)  P,  114(24) 
^-^m-]  ^r!2?  J,  353  (3) 
^2^  J,  216  (9) 

nirx  nj^2?  r,  289  (4) 
"i|2n  iny  p,  192  (5) 
nni^n  nto?  j,  30  (2) 
nicy  J,  29  (1) 

lim  (inf.)  E,  530  (3) 

non  ntey  j,  245  (39) 
iny  J,  321  (1) 

a  y.^B  E.  342  (3) 
Onx  -jns  P,  320  (4) 

^2b:  (T12)  J,  143  (1) 
pns;^  ins  e,  371  (9) 
n"in  ^Bb  J,  403  (7) 

r^b^S  J,  292  (2) 
bbs  E,  519  (4) 

bbsnn  e,  260  (3) 

D?2n  J,  241  (9) 

ns  nss  J,  40  (10) 
nss;  (t?b)  j,  118  (S) 

nSD  J,  242  (12) 


1j5E  J,  270  (1) 

ms:  p.  118(8),  143(1),  195 

nnni  nns  p,  105  (is) 

^■12  J,  341  (3) 
D^'iCnS  J,  530  (4) 
nns  J,  486  (20) 

nns?  E,  484  (9) 

nns  p,  119  (9) 
n^b2tn  J,  306  (16) 

Dbs  P,  50  (5) 

nn^rsr  j,  250  (2) 
nj^ys  J,  241  (7) 

nns  E,  484  (10) 

ninrncni  ni]5  j,  307  (20) 
D"'i2y  bnp  p,  333  (6) 

Dip  (be  made  sure)  P,  297  (9) 

n^na  D^pn  p,  107  (I6) 

nrL:p  (of  age)  E,  355  (2) 

bp  J,  119  (11) 
bbp  J,  181  (6) 

^;^]p  P,  370  (2) 
nsp  J,  508  (5) 

mni  nm  xnp  j,  326  (5) 
^■5312)  onn  Knp^  e,  519  (3) 

nxnpb  J,  242  (16) 

nnpn  j,  306  (i5) 

nsn  (infin.)  E,  518  (1) 

na-ii?  nann  j,  216  (lo) 
npp  nnh  e,  273  (lo) 
nnn  (inf.  of  nn;')  e,  498  (3) 
nxnpb  fin  j,  353  (2) 
pnnn  e,  273  (i3) 
n?n  J,  530  (4) 


INDEX 


579 


ttJIDn,  iTDn  P,  176  (2) 
TSia-1,  1^12-)  P,  115  (36) 
y-\  J,  456  (0) 
^rya  y?7  E,  372  (4) 
pn  J^  63  (7) 

n'lT^  J,  39  (2) 

inr^b  UW  E,  273  (12) 

nii^n  n^to  j,  3o  (2) 
b^ait^iun  J,  i94  (2) 

S:tO  j,  306  (18) 

nsia  J,  145  (1) 

pic  E,  483  (3) 

n^ni?  ninnrn  (nn©)  j,  244 

(27) 

n™n,  nnttj  p,  111  (i9) 


"ipiaa  n'i3i25n  j,  244  (26) ;  e,  372 

(3) 

i^ns  um  J,  41  (13) 

t^lzm  J,  293  (4) 

bi?  y^©  p,  297  (10) 

bipa  v^ia  e,  272  (2) 

bipb  ^12X0  J,  216  (8) 
"^.^n  •'3©  P,  296  (5) 
nriDTC  J,  353  (4) 
qP'4  J'  241  (6) 

f  nc,  f  n©  p,  115  (25) 
nibip  p,  96  (1) 
nayin  j,  503  (6) 

nOin  P,  297  (7) 
on  J,  507  (3) 

Diffibo  biian  e,  371 

D^Snn  E,  371  (3) 


IV.  The  English  Equivalents 


Abated,  J,  119  (11) 

Abomination,  J,  503  (6) 

Advanced  in  days,  J,  245  (32) 

Afar  off,  E,  273  (13) 

Again,  J,  40  (8) 

All  flesh,  P,  103  (11) 

All  living  things,  P,  118  (7) 

All  that  went  out  of  the  gate  of 

the  city,  P,  403  (11) 
Also,  J,  243  (19) 
Am  I  in  the  place  of  God,  E, 

530  (4) 
Angel  (of  Jehovah),  J,  215  (1) 
Angry,  to  be,  J,  245  (30) 
Aram-naharaim,  J,  305  (3) 
Archer,  E,  273  (10) 

Beak,  to,  P,  192  (2) 

Beast,  P,  403  (9) 


Beast  of  the  earth,  P,  4,  30  (2) 
Beast  of  the  field,  J,  30  (2) 
Because  ("}?;:),  R,  289  (3) 
Because  (Dp?),  R,  289  (4) 
Because  of  (bbSS),  J,  185  (6) 
Because  of  (n^nyS),  J,  118  (6) 
Before,  J,  243  (13) 
Beforetime,  E,  371 
Beget,  J  or  P,  111  (20),  133,  234 

(10) 
Begin,  J,  61  (2) 
Behold  now,  J,  185  (4) 
Bethuel  the  Aramaean,  P,  320  (5) 
Bless  one's  self,  R,  289  (5) 
Blessed  of  Jehovah,  J,  326  (4) 
Blot  out,  J,  111  (19) 
Bondmaid,  J,  353  (4) 
Bone  and  flesh,  mj-,  J,  353  (3) 


580 


INDEX 


Born  to,  were,  J,  133 

Both  .  .  .  and,  J,  503  (10) 

Bottle,  E,  273  (8) 

Bow  himself  to  the  earth,  J,  244 

(27) 
Bow  the  head  and  worship,  J, 

307  (20) 
Break  forth,  J,  341  (3) 
Bring  down  (to  Egypt),  J,  451  (3) 
Brother's  name,  and  his,  J,  41  (13) 
Burn  in  one's  eyes  (anger),  E,  491 

(2) 
Bush  of  the  field,  J,  30  (2) 

Call  upon  the  name  of  Jehovah, 

J,  326  (5) 
Cast  out,  E.  272  (5) 
Chariots,  J,  530  (4) 
Child,  E,  272  (6) 
Children  of  Heth,  P,  296  (3) 
Circumcised,  every  male  of  you 

be,  P,  402  (5) 
Cleave  unto,  J,  403  (1) 
Collection,  P,  4,  5 
Come  (incitement),  J,  456  (6) 
Comest,  as  thou,  J,  143  (8) 
Concubine,  J,  292  (2) 
Covenant,  conclude  or  make,  J, 

107  (16) ;  E,  276  (2) 
Covenant,  establish  or  ordain,  P, 

107  (16) 
Create,  P,  29  (1) 
Creep,    creeping    thing,    P,    115 

(25,  26) 
Cry,  J,  241  (7) 
Curse,  J,  181  (6) 
Cursed  art  thou,  J,  40  (6) 

Daughters  of  the  Canaanites, 

J,  305  (4) 
Days  of  the  years  of  the  life,  P, 

311  (6) 
Destroy,  P,  111  (19) 
Divide,  P,  4,  5 


Door,  J,  486  (20) 
Dream,  E,  260  (4) 
Dwell,  P,  192  (3) 

Eating,  P,  112  (21) 

Elder,  E,  355  (2) 

End,  J,  508  (5) 

Enemy,  J,  306  (18) 

Eternity  (compounds  of),  P,  235 

(17) 
Every  living  thing,  J,  118  (7) 
Exceedingly  Cl^U  li^^),  P,  116 

(27) 
Exceedingly  (^X^  13?),  E,  334 

(4) 
Except,  E,  276  (4) 
Expire,  P,  110  (18) 

Fail,  J,  507  (3) 

Fair,  J,  61  (5) 

Fair  of  form  and  fair  to  look 

upon,  E,  355  (3) 
Fair  to  look  upon,  J,  306  (13) 
Families,  according  to  their,  P, 

104  (13),  142  (4) 
Families  of  the  earth,  all  the,  J, 

181  (4) 
Far  be  it,  J,  241  (8) 
Father  of,  J,  137 
Fear  of  Isaac,  E,  371  (9) 
Fell  on  his  neck,  J,  502  (1) 
Field,  J,  39  (2) 
Find  favor,  J,  62  (10) 
First-born,  J,  250  (1) 
Fodder,  J,  483  (1) 
Food  (bDi?),  J,  485  (12) 
Food  (nbpij),  P,  112  (21) 
Forasmuch  as,  J,  456  (8) 
Form,  to,  J,  29  (1) 
For  therefore,  J,  243  (18) 
For  the  sake  of,  J,  242  (11) 
Found,  J,  507  (2) 
Friend,  J,  456  (5) 


INDEX 


581 


From  the  time  that,  J,  462  (3) 
Fruitful,  be,   and  multiply,  P, 
105  (15) 

Gather,  P,  176  (2) 

Gathered  unto  his  people,  P,  310 

(5) 
Gathering  together,  P,  4,  5 
Generations,  P,  96  (1) 
Generations,    throughout'  their, 

P,  236  (19) 
Get,  P,  176  (2) 
Get  possessions,  P,  402  (4) 
Getting,  P,  370  (2) 
Give  up  the  ghost,  P,  310  (4) 
God  was  with  him,  E,  271  (1) 
Goods,  P,  176  (2) 
Go  to  the  right,  the  left,  J,  194  (2) 
Grain,  E,  485  (12) 
Grieved,  to  be,  J,  62  (8) 
Grievous  in  the  eyes,  E,  272  (4) 
Ground,  J,  341  (4) 
Ground,  on  the  face  of  the,  J, 

61(3) 
Grow,  E,  519  (5) 

Hearken  to  the  voice  of,  J,  216 

(8) ;  E,  272  (2) 
Heart,  E,  260  (2) 
Heart,  at  or  unto  his,  J,  118  (5) 
Heavy,  J,  485  (14) 
Herb  of  the  field,  J,  30  (2) 
Here,  E,  276  (5) 
Him  also,  to,  J,  137 
Horsemen,  J,  530  (4) 
Horses,  J,  507  (4) 
House,  J,  333  (4) 
Hundred,  P,  269  (1) 

Image,  P,  50  (5) 
Imagination,  J,  62  (6) 
In  order  that,  E,  276  (3) 
Israel,  J,  450  (1) 
It  may  be,  J,  217  (12) 


Jacob,  E,  450  (1) 
Journey,  to,  J,  498  (1) 

Keep  alive,  J,  120  (12) 
Kind  (species),  P.  114  (23) 
Kindness  and  truth,  J,  305  (6) 
Know  (euphemism),  J,  306  (14) 

Laban  the  Aramaean,  E,  371  (4) 

Lad,  J,  484  (4) 

Land  of  Canaan,  P,  177  (4) 

Land  of  Egypt,  P,  509  (1) 

Land  of  Goshen,  J,  509  (1) 

Light,  a  (in  the  ark),  P,  119  (9) 

Light  upon,  to,  E,  342  (3) 

Likeness,  P,  4 

Lip  (language),  J,  145  (1) 

Little,  a,  J,  485  (16) 

Living  substance,  J,  119  (10) 

Lodging-place,  J,  483  (2) 

Long  for,  P,  402  (3) 

Look,  J,  241  (5) 

Look  forth,  J.  241  (6) 

Lord,  my  OpHi),  J,  241  (4) 

Machpelah,  P,  296  (4) 
Made  sure,  P,  297  (9) 
Maid-servant,  E,  259  (1) 
Make,  J,  29  (1) 
Make  a  nation,  E,  273  (12) 
Make  an  end,  J,  333  (2) 
Make  himself  known,  E,  489 
Make  prosperous,  J,  306  (16) 
Male  and  female,  P,  103  (12) 
Male  and  his  female,  J,  117  (3) 
Man,  the,  J,  61  (4),  484  (6) 
Man,  the  lord  of  the  land,  E,  484 

(6) 
Meet,  to,  J,  242  (16) 
Multiply  greatly,  J,  216  (10) 

Name,  and  her,  J,  293  (4) 
Name  shall  be  called  on  them, 
E,  519  (3) 


682 


INDEX 


Nations  of  the  earth,  all  the,  J, 
243  (25) 

Not  to  be  numbered  for  multi- 
tude, J,  217  (11) 

Not  to,  J,  243  (14) 

Nourished,  E,  506  (2),  530  (2) 

Oath,  J,  326  (3) 

Offspring  and  posterity,  E,  277 

(10) 
On  account  of,  E,  273  (14) 

Only  (^S?),  E,  333  (1) 

Only  (p-l),  J,  62  (7) 
Only  (son),  E,  287  (6) 
Open  the  mouth,  J,  40  (10) 
Overspread,  was,  J,  118  (8) 

Paddan-aram,  P,  320  (4) 

Parts,  J,  509  (9) 
Peradventure,  J,  306  (8) 
Perpetuity    (compounds  of),  P, 

235  (17) 
Person,  P,  177  (3) 
Possession,  P,  233  (7) 
Possession  of  cattle,  J,  509  (8) 
Possession  of  flocks,  J,  509  (8) 
Possession  of  herds,  J,  509  (8) 
Possess  the  gate,  J,  306  (19) 
Pray,  to,  E,  260  (3) 
Pray  thee,  I,  J,  185  (3) 
Presented,  J,  503  (7) 
Press,  to,  J,  242  (12) 
Prevailed,  E,  506  (3) 
Prince,  P,  235  (11) 
Prison,  J,  484  (7) 
Provision,  E,  484  (9) 
Purchase,  P,  234  (9) 

Recognize,  J,  456  (4) 
Refrain  himself,  J,  489 
Refused,  J,  519  (2) 
Remember.  E,  484  (11) 
Reprove,  E,  276  (7) 


Restrain,  J,  216  (9) 

Rise  up  early  in  the  morning,  J, 

244  (26)  ;  E,  272  (3) 
Run  to  meet,  J,  353  (2) 

Sack,  J,  483  (3) 

Saith  Jehovah,  R,  289  (2) 

Say  concerning,  E,  262  (5) 

Seed  with  him,  P,  498  (2) 

Self-same,  P,  114  (24) 

Send  good  speed,  J,  306  (15) 

Servant  of  Jehovah,  J,  305  (2) 

Siie  also,  J,  292  (3) 

Shoot,  to,  E,  273  (9; 

Show  kindness,  J,  245  (29) 

So  did  he,  P,  105  (14) 

Sojourner,  P,  297  (7) 

Sojournings,  P,  234  (8) 

Sorrow,  J,  30  (7) 

Souls,  P,  177  (3) 

Speak  in  his  heart,  J,  306  (17) 

Speak  in  the  ears  of,  J,  529  (2) 

Spent,  to  be,  J,  507  (3) 

Spread  abroad,  J,  341  (3) 

Stood  on  or  over,  J,  341  (2) 

Stranger,  P,  235  (12) 

Subdue,  P,  4 

Substance,  P,  176  (2) 

Swarm,  swarming  things,  P,  115 

(25) 
Swear  by  myself,  R,  288  (1) 

Teraphim,  E,  371  (3) 

That  soul  shall  be  cut  off,  P,  236 

(20) 
Therefore  was  called,  J,  530  (6) 
This  time,  J,  241  (9) 
Thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  P, 

109  (17) 
Thou  art  yet  alive,  J,  502  (4) 
Thought,  E,  519  (4) 
Thy  servant,  J,  243  (24) 
Till  the  ground,  J,  40  (3) 


INDEX 


683 


Times,  E,  371  (10) 

Toil,  J,  30  (7) 

Tongue  (language),  P,  145  (1) 

Took,  P,  176  (1) 

Treated  well,  J,  185  (2) 

Trouble,  to,  J,  404  (8) 

Tunic,  E,  451  (2) 

Tunic,  long,  J,  451  (2) 

Upon  the  knees  of,  E,  530  (5) 
Urge,  J,  243  (12) 

Visit,  J,  270  (1) 

Wages,  E,  354  (1) 

Ward,  E,  484  (7) 

Waters  of  the  flood,  J,  120  (13) 


What  is  this  that  thou  hast  done, 

J.  185  (7) 
Wherefore,  J,  243  (17) 
Which  belong  to,  J,  353  (1) 
Which  ought  not  to  be  done,  J, 

403  (5) 
Wife  (concubine),  P,  214  (5) 
Wild  beast,  P,  113  (22) 
Window  (in  the  ark),  J,  119  (9) 
With  the  edge  of  the  sword,  J, 

403  (7) 

Years  of  the  life  of,  P,  296  (5) 
You  and  your  seed  after  you,  P, 

109  (17) 
Younger  {T\y>V'l),  J,  250  (2) 
Younger  (n2i:j5),  E,  355  (2) 
Youth,  J,  503'  (5) 


Date  Due 

;  ^      t 

i"^, 

^0  >0  '53 

flH^^^^^^^^^^^*^9H^  I 

,i*i*flifCi 

^*'  1  i  i"iifl>-    . 

JWUfinP^flJIp) 

^ 

